Author: Amir Ban
Date: 15:58:45 03/16/98
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 1998 at 13:48:00, Ed Schröder wrote: >Get rid of double games. What do they contribute to comp-comp games? >Nothing in my opinion. > > >>Second, and for the above reasons, competent learners should take care >>of losing the same game twice. Therefore, no losing doubles anymore. > >Easy to say, difficult to program. > >Moreover you indirectly say: "The best learner wins the jackpot".... > >How about the chess engine? > >Isn't that the main goal of SSDF? > > > >>Third, for statistical accuracy we want very many games played. Testers >>can not check them all one by one. > >A little utility can do the job. Secondly the above described double >game definition is implemented since Rebel7. Easy to program. > > >>>#2. Accept only general accepted AUTO232 software also available >>>for the public to check. > >>I am very much in favor, basically to avoid suspicion. But I don't see >>how this relates to this issue. > >>>SSDF is in full control. >>>They set the rules. >>>They have my trust. > >>>In the meantime you may give me your advice what to do. > >>>#1. Spent 3-4-5 months of my time to write the perfect comp-comp >>>learner? Goal: ELO 2900 on SSDF but in reality 400 points less? > >>Learners should neutralize each other. As a result, this 400 points >>difference is not real. > >If you can recognize the opponent everything is possible. > >Scenario.... > >Play 200-300 games against a SSDF opponent. You then have a learned >book especially tuned on that opponent. Save the new book. > >Repeat that for every expected SSDF opponent. Save the new books. > >Release the program with these optimized opponents books. Being in >AUTO232 recognize the opponent and load the "prepared" book. > >I am not in the mood to put energy in that. It's also a clear cheat. >However if you manage you can enter SSDF with 2900. > > >>>#2. Forget about SSDF and fully concentrate on the engine and >>>useful new features? > >>Once the learner is designed, I guess it's the end of the problem. Am I >>missing something? > >Yes you miss that learners are in the state of the Boris computer of >the late 70ths. So much to improve. > > >>>#3. Resign from SSDF, Rebel not on SSDF anymore, this in combination >>>with point #2? > This thing is getting out of hand. May I point out that there are simple and effective ways to reduce the likelyhood of repeating games to nearly zero, that can be implemented with a few lines of code and without seriously affecting strength ? These methods may not merit an article in the ICCAJ, and do not count as a user feature, but are as effective at making a learner frustrated and would make the booker-ups look silly. What's more this would be purely defensive with no vicious intent. I think every one of the programmers can produce this in an evening or so. Anyway this sounds easier to me than thinking up ways to make an autoplayer sound sinister or ordering the SSDF to do this, do that. Amir
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.