Author: Wayne Lowrance
Date: 07:45:41 08/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 01, 2001 at 10:37:39, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >On August 01, 2001 at 03:54:23, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On August 01, 2001 at 02:06:06, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On August 01, 2001 at 02:01:45, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On August 01, 2001 at 01:44:33, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 01, 2001 at 01:40:03, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 31, 2001 at 18:49:37, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On July 31, 2001 at 18:36:53, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>><snip> >>>>>>>>Franz Morsch saying the main difference between this version of Fritz compared >>>>>>>>to its predecessors did not lie so much in greater chess knowledge but more due >>>>>>>>to the machines newfound ability to deal with anti-computer chess strategy, and >>>>>>>>to learn from its mistakes. He also said that he believed that this incarnation >>>>>>>>of Fritz is every bit as strong as the Deep Blue II that defeated Kasparov and >>>>>>>>has far greater "chess knowledge". >>>>>>>><snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>For a machine with many thousands of tunable chess parameters, carefully >>>>>>>adjusted by teams of programmers and GM's >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>carefully adjusted by programmers and GM's? >>>>>>I doubt it. >>>>> >>>>>The programmers first used a gradient method, which was based upon thousands of >>>>>GM games. Then, individual parameters were hand-tuned by the GM's advice. >>>> >>>>I doubt if using GM's games to adjust the evaluation is a good idea. >>>>I also doubt if GM's advise for parameters is a good idea because I believe that >>>>the GM's do not think in the numbers of computers in games. >>>> >>>>The GM's have not time to calculate evaluation in the computer way and I do not >>>>think the advantage of GM's against computer is because of a better static >>>>evaluation. >>>> >>>>The advantage of humans against computers is their ability to think and change >>>>their evaluation during the game and the ability to plan that is not about >>>>evaluation. >>> >>>I might be wrong, but I rather suspect that all of the best computer chess >>>programs have advice incorporated from GM's. Perhaps some of it is indirect >>>(e.g. someone advised Robert Hyatt, someone looked at Hyatt's code). >> >>I suspect that it is only a small part of the work about chess programs. >>The biggest part is testing changes and I guess that it is done by games or test >>positions and not by GM's. >> >>Building the right test positions may be also a lot of work because good >>test positions should be taken from games when in part of the cases there is no >>tactics and the problem is to find a good positional move. >> >>Uri > >I hope I am quoting Christophe correct. He posted that he does not use game to >evaluate results. He has spent time to write testing code (part or all of which >is embedded in his development chess program to evaluate changes. Sounds like >the correct way to go if you have confidence in the evaluation code. >Wayne The evaluation of the testing code seems easy. a) set up a board position of the typcal problem. b) Nest the testing code without changing the chess playing program. It must not affect the before-after eval. c) Make the changes thought to improved the program. d) Check the eval and the board to observe the change in play if any. To simplistic Christopohe ? Wayne
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.