Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 02:41:06 03/18/98
Go up one level in this thread
>Posted by Enrique Irazoqui on March 17, 1998 at 19:45:08: >Not such a sophisticated learner, by the way. A simple one, a human-like >one. A learner that repeats the opening line when winning and avoids it >when losing, just as we do. In the process, it takes care of double >games. Here you go "a sophisticated learner"................ You want us to solve everything with learners???? Where is the chess engine (the main reason why people buy chess programs) in your point of view? Well, I will give you a very good and (hopefully) convincing example that COMP-COMP learners have the potential to cheat on SSDF. Before doing so I like to emphasize this topic is about COMPUTER VERSUS COMPUTER games as played on the Swedish Computer Rating List also called the SSDF. This topic is not about learning in normal Human-Computer games. Rebel supports that and the learner software will be further improved. This little introduction in order to avoid confusion. The example... I now know that the Swedish interrupt matches and then later restart the match. All ok and understandable and nothing wrong about that. BUT.................. looking at my code with this "new" information I can make advantage of that information and add special learning -ROTFL- software which will gain at least 30-40 ELO points on SSDF. This is no joke. I checked the Rebel9 book learn software and I can do it if I wish. This is crazy no? It's crazy because the 30-40 elo improvement is counted as a gain of playing strength. That's what the list implies or? And now the $64,000 question.... Shall I? It's a cheat no? It's a cheat because it hides the REAL strength of an chess engine. The SSDF list (as I always have understood) is meant to order chess programs in a list based on playing strength. These days my only conclusion is that "learners" do have too much influence to succeed that goal. It's my fear that competing in SSDF will end in fights between "sophisticated learners" (as you like to name them) instead of the original goal which is fights between two strong engines. This whole "learning" (as currently programmed and in relation to SSDF) is a cheat in itself which I don't want to be a part of (anymore). Look at the above example. It's crazy, no? - Ed -
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.