Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 09:08:00 03/17/98
Go up one level in this thread
>Posted by Enrique Irazoqui on March 16, 1998 at 19:34:31: About F5-200 <> R8-90 31.5 - 8.5 Enrique wrote... The problem is that this partcular result is not realistic. Ed Schroder wrote... Here you say it. Enrique wrote... Same reason: flawed learner. So you admit that "learners" give "not realistic" results? Do you agree with me that without a decent learner a chess program on SSDF is killed these days? >Not what I heard from other programmers. Not what I have seen in new >programs with good learners. They just don't lose the same game twice. You are overlooking one very important and crucial fact. See below. >>Moreover you indirectly say: "The best learner wins the jackpot".... >The contrary. What I m saying is: with good learners, and they do exist >today, this whole issue is irrelevant. It was important a few years ago, >when learners didn't exist. Now this prehistory. Wrong view. See below. >We all want to know the real strength of engines. A good learner does >the trick. Sure and learners do a lot more. As you said unrealistic results if the computer opponent: #1. has no learner at all. #2. has not an aggressive learner. I have tested this myself with Rebel9. Played a series of games against program_X. Program_X had NO learner. Results (by head) Rebel9 (learner off) - Program_X 24-16 Rebel9 (learner on) - Program_X 33-7 The 33-7 is a cheat. The 33-7 doesn't reflect the real playing strength between Rebel9 and Program_X where the 24-16 result does! Of course the 33-7 had many many doubles because the Rebel9 learner simply starts repeating the games he previous already had won. That is a cheat. Second example.... Tested Rebel9 against Program_Y. Program_Y has a learner! Results again by head. Rebel9 (learner off) - Program_Y (learner off) 22-18 Rebel9 (learner off) - Program_Y (learner on) 20-20 Rebel9 (learner on) - Program_Y (learner off) 29-11 Rebel9 (learner on) - Program_Y (learner on) 27-13 This shows there is a huge difference in the learning quality between these 2 programs. In no way this does reflect the playing strength between Rebel9 and Program_Y. The only reliable result is the first one (22-18) the one with no learners. Now you can blame Program_Y for not having a good learner. My point is that with comp-comp learning you can gain a lot elo points on SSDF. This is a cheat. Now to your theory that learning is so easy to program. It is not. Learners are so easy to mislead. Example 3.... Program_Z has a good (but hidden) learner. You can't put it on or off it is just always on. I played hundreds of auto232 games to test the impact of the Program_Z learner. It goes like this.... Rebel9 (learner off) - Program_Z 24-6 round-1 Rebel9 (learner off) - Program_Z 20-10 round-2 Rebel9 (learner off) - Program_Z 16-14 round-3 Rebel9 (learner off) - Program_Z 14-16 round-4 Rebel9 (learner off) - Program_Z 12-18 round-5 Program_Z is heavily learned against Rebel9. But now comes the trick. I let Program_Z play 200 games against another program. Which? I forgot but it doesn't matter. Program_Z starts to learn against this program. Now I repeat the Rebel9 testing and Program_Z is totally confused by the 200 games he just played. Rebel9 simply wins again against Program_Z with remarkable scores. Silly isn't it? So take my word for it that comp-comp learning is still in childhood stage. So much to improve. And comp-comp learning is simply a cheat as the goal is to get a higher elo on SSDF. It has nothing to do with the strength of the chess engine. Blame me for my part in it. With Rebel9 I joined the club. Now I step out. It was a mistake. I will not support this silly cooking race any longer. Back to the roots which is the chess engine. - Ed -
This page took 0.03 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.