Author: Tony Hedlund
Date: 06:08:55 07/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 2001 at 08:22:08, Harald Faber wrote: >On July 24, 2001 at 07:48:06, Tony Hedlund wrote: > >>On July 24, 2001 at 05:17:48, Harald Faber wrote: >> >>> >>>For Tony: Do you reset the weights in the opening book before you start new >>>matches or do you take over the learned move preferences from former matches? >> >>I don't reset the opening book. > > >Aha! This is one of the most important statements I have read since months. > > >>But for the matches I now play it doesn't matter. In the first match, Deep Fritz >>- Tiger 14 CB 20-20, DP was on my "left computer". In the present match, >>Gambit Tiger 2 CP - Deep Fritz 18-21(so far), DP is on my "right computer". So >>Deep Fritz didn't learn anything from Tiger 14 CB. But in the next match, Gambit >>Tiger 2 CP - Tiger 14 CB, both programs have had the possibility to learn from >>Deep Fritz. > > >It is not only that DeepFritz cannot have learned from Tiger 14 to use it for >the current match, but DeepFritz *already* has learned from former opponents. Not in this case, since I play with new computers. >So if you play DeepFritz (or any other program) which has learned from say 100 >games, versus a new entry, the new program definitely has a disadvantage because >it has no learned values. This statement *I* find interesting. Usually we get criticism because we play against programs with *no* learner. >>So in that sence we honours the best learner, which probably also is >>the best program. > > >Uhh, IMO this is nonsense. Oh, sorry, yes, it is the best *program*, but not the >strongest *engine*. I'm glad that we agree on SSDF testing for the best program. >I don't deny that learning also counts to a program like the >opening book, but at the moment I see a much too high value for effective >bookleraning. One might fear that in near future several programmers will >concentrate on *very* effective booklearning (Hi Christophe, how far is yours?) >instead of improving the engine. Please prove me wrong... If we just had tested engines over the years, without books and learners (and not counting doubles). I don't think we would have such strong programs as we have now. IMHO. Tony >>Tony
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.