Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 20:05:10 07/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 2001 at 12:59:21, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On June 29, 2001 at 12:23:16, Steve Maughan wrote: > >Hello othello is a children game compared to chess of course. >It's like when i'm in the draughtsworld and people there still >haven't figured out to cache EGTB probes in a special cache >and they still haven't figured out there to do more probes >in hashtable. > >Same is true for Othello. > >Add to that that Othello is nearly solved. > >If you would be searching a bit faster & deeper, then >you don't even need tuning for othello. > >it's like saying that a bicycle steering wheel is exactly >what a formula 1 car needs to perform better as he does now, >because it works fine for you on your own bicycle. > >How many strong programs are automatic tuned? > >ZERO I does not mean that there won't be one in the future. In fact, there is no physical reason that says that a manual tuning will be always better than an automatic or semi-automatic tuning. Regards, Miguel > >I remember knightcap. Its automatic tuning was so pathetic >that in the end it was giving away pieces to give its opponent >a few checks. Crafty in those days had a pretty weak king safety, >and search depths dominated in those days. So aggressive play from >a 7 ply engine against another 7 ply engine worked quite well back >then. > >If it would play crafty now you would see a 0% score and knightcap >would seem a lot less well. > >In short it's always easy to conclude that something works if >all you need is to get closer to a 50% score. > >If you want to get a score > 50% against someone (for example >an equal rated program) then you will run into trouble! > >>Vincent, >> >>>The bigger your evaluation is, the more problematic tuning it automatic >>>is. >> >>True - as the domain space increases it is more difficult to find the optimal. >> >>>Also automatic tuners don't have any chess knowledge, so they >>>don't see the difference between tuning passed pawns negative if you happen >>>to have a testset where a passer is bad now and then. >> >>You simply need a large test set. This is the same problem as solving a set of >>equations. In that case you have 'x' unknowns you need 'x' equations. In the >>case of an evaluation function you will need much more due to interaction. >> >>>Another problem for automatic tuners is that you tune for testposition set X, >>>but that in reality it has to work well also for testset Y where it has >>>not been tuned for. >> >>Again you need a large test set. >> >>>Evaluations hand tuned take into account testset Y, not only testset X. >> >>Not necessarily. >> >>>Anyway, when your number of parameters gets quite a big number then >>>automatic tuning doesn't work anyway anymore. >> >>It is certainly more difficult. >> >>>Of course it might beat random chosen parameters, but it'll never beat >>>hand chosen parameters (unless a fool choses them). >> >>This is not the case for some other games. Othello being an example. ALL >>decent Othello programs (e.g. mine www.maughan.clara.net) are automatically >>tuned. Othello is a purely positional game and lends itself to self tuning. >>Chess is MUCH more complex but I predict that in the next ten years we will see >>some significant advances in automatic evaluation tuning. >> >>Regards, >> >>Steve Maughan
This page took 0.04 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.