Author: Wayne Lowrance
Date: 12:02:31 05/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 08, 2001 at 13:54:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 08, 2001 at 13:21:07, Wayne Lowrance wrote: > >>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. > > >Fritz took the book learning algorithm from Crafty, including the code that >adjusts the learning value based on the rating of the opponent _and_ the search >depth reached during the game. > >But in the case mentioned, there were _no_ blitz games of any kind played, >just the qualifying games. Okey but the strength of the opponent is not given in the games I play at blitz. They are games played mostly with a friend in Australia. My question was regarding these playing conditions, mainly opponent Paramater no specified. > >> >>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. >>> > >Not sure what you mean by "kaput" but not in Crafty, normally. IE a bad result >out of book isn't enough to kill a line. It might remove the last couple of >choices in that line, but not the entire line... unless you have a very tiny/ >narrow book. No the books are not small and tiny. Kaput was just slang for " the lines will not be generally selected" because of the red flag (Fritz book for example). I wonder if book learning is a good thing when blitz and long time contlrols are plaqyed. > >Against a "better opponent" my book learning takes this into account, assuming >the ratings are provided (this is automatic on a chess server)... > > > >>> >>>> >>>>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.