Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:36:32 11/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2000 at 12:36:41, Ed Schröder wrote: >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 yes, in plural. Examples can be found without my having to supply them. They are well-known. I didn't mention any names for a reason. > > > (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 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.