Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:56:26 01/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2001 at 17:39:14, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On January 13, 2001 at 17:19:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Do as I did. Make the extension amount something you can set via command. >>Then run a potload of tests. I ran WAC with all the extensions set to >>values between .5 and 1.0, in increments of .25. That is 3 cases for >>each extension and I varied 4 different extensions. 81 tests and you then >>look at which ones needed the fewest total nodes to solve _all_ the test >>positions... > >Doesn't that have the disadvantage of tuning the extensions only >for WAC, but not for general chess play? You can hardly say that >WAC are 'typical' positions... > >Since I'm not solving all of WAC yet in 'acceptable' time your >method seems hard to apply. I'm not sure just picking the one >that just solves most is the right thing to do for the above reason. > >Especially because that happens to be the one _without_ fractional and >recapture extensions. > >-- >GCP Then pick any test set you want. But the point is that you _must_ be able to reproduce the same test for different extension values to be able to compare them... If you just watch it play games, then you might as well pick random numbers for the extension values..
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.