Author: Wayne Lowrance
Date: 10:21:07 05/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2001 at 12:16:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 08, 2001 at 11:57:07, Larry Proffer wrote: > >>On May 08, 2001 at 11:43:29, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On May 08, 2001 at 10:58:01, Larry Proffer wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>Thank you for your reply. I concur. >>>> >>>>What we do know is that Fritz and Junior are, to all intents and purposes >>>>'equal', or very nearly 'equal'. >>>> >>>>If we need to find a winner, it makes *no* difference how many games we play. >>>> >>>>If we play one game, Fritz has a 50% chance, Junior a 50% chance. >>>> >>>>If we play one thousand games, Fritz has a 50% chance and Junior has a 50% >>>>chance. >>>> >>>>Number of games is not relevant when they are so closely matched. >>> >>>I guess that the number of games is relevant and if the number of games is >>>bigger the better learner is going to win and it means probably that Fritz is >>>going to win after many games because Fritz has a bigger book so it is more easy >>>for it to learn to go for lines that the opponent does not understand. >>> >>>Uri >> >>1. This, of course, opens up a lot of questions as to why machines were switched >>after a few games. This would have killed Fritz's learn files. > >Why? Everything could have been moved easily. > > >> >>It is known that 'book-learning' can have bad effects, particularly after a >>string of losses. The effect can be to push the program away from its usual >>openings into even worse areas of the book. The desire, of course, is to hope >>that it gets pushed away from the losses towards soemthign less bad, but, in >>practice, it can be pushed into even worse regions from which there is no >>escape. > > >I don't know "where this is known" from.. If you lose a game with a specific >opening, and you don't play it again, you won't lose that game again.. > Bob, I think that I have at times destroyed book lines for normal time controls by playing blitz and bullet with losses. But these lines may be perfectly sound for long time controls. I do not know this to be fact. Also another thought. Consider two opening main lines a.) Line (a) is in fact better than line b). But against a better program line (a) loses, _not_ because it is a bad line, it just lost. Maybe line (a) was playing a superior cpu, a superior program and it lost. Opening line (b) is inferior to line (a) stipulated and will loose even worse but now both of the lines, as I understand are Kaput. > > >> >>Books are so large, and the pathways produced by learning so unpredictable, that >>this effect is quite common. > >I have been doing "book learning" for 5 years now. I don't see this at all >and I have a big book. > > >> >>So another question is why carry out a machine switch whose effect would have >>been to kill the learnt data? >> >> >>2. We know about learning in computer chess. Would you tell us if it (comp-comp >>learning) has any relevance at all in 'finding the best opponent for Kramnik'. >>Doesn't the luck involved with this bi-program learning process (remember, the >>learning pathways are almost infinite - we don't know where they lead, and they >>may make things worse) just add to the general fact that Fritz still has 50% >>chance, and Junior still has 50% chance? > >Learning is part of the engine. In a match vs a human, a computer had _better_ >have good learning skills or it will lose the same game over and over..
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.