Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 09:36:41 11/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2000 at 11:56:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 28, 2000 at 11:50:12, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On November 28, 2000 at 10:30:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>[snip] >>To add a bit, here is an output from a chess engine for one of the WAC >>positions: >> >>Middlegame phase. >> 2 -173 4 525 e5c6 d6c6 >> 2 -173 4 1232 e5c6 d6c6 >> 3 -188 5 1569 e5c6 d6c6 f6h5 >> 3 -187 6 4205 g3g6 ! >> 3 -123 6 4577 g3g6 >> 3 -122 7 6316 f6h5 ! >> 3 -101 7 7444 f6e8 ! >> 3 -17 7 7746 f6e8 d6e5 d4e5 d8e8 >> 4 -17 7 8247 f6e8 d6e5 d4e5 d8e8 >> 4 -17 8 10898 f6e8 d6e5 d4e5 d8e8 >> 5 -12 8 11626 f6e8 d6e5 d4e5 d8e8 a1d1 >> 5 -11 11 22518 g3g6 ! >> 5 383 14 33800 g3g6 !! >> 5 999996 14 34042 g3g6 d6e5 >> 5 999996 15 34369 g3g6 d6e5 >>Learning score: 999996 best: 36 depth:5 hash: F45FB3C8 >> >>Notice that it 'found' g6 at ply 3. Was it 'solved'? Obviously not. Why not? >>Because it had no idea how good the position was. Because of this, the choice >>was easily abandoned at later ply. Given enough time, it found the right move >>for the right reason and stuck to it. > > >That was my point. I have no idea how Bruce could interpret my comment as >accusing the author of the program of 'cheating'. > >I can certainly say one thing. I hope he never writes a paper for publication >in any journal. Because often the reviews that come back ask for clarification >or more data, and often the reviewer will give reasons why he wants the >clarification. And most of us would _never_ take such reasons as accusation >that _we_ did the same thing. We would take them as an explanation for why >the reviewer felt more information was needed. > >"I don't trust a solution that has the right move but the wrong score, because >I have seen (a) programs tuned to choose the right move to improve their test >result scores artificially; That is a heavy accusation. Examples? Note you are talking in plural too. Ed (b) I have seen programs later change their mind >and not select the right move, given more time, because they didn't understand >how good the original move was; (c) I have seen programs play the right first >move, but veer off into a perpetual for the same reason." Was what I said. I >see _no_ way to take that as an accusation that the programmer/program in >question did any of those. Instead, that is the reason why _I_ am personally >skeptical of right move wrong score solutions, period.
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.