Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:56:27 08/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 01, 2001 at 10:45:41, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >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 Not so easy You need to find the right board positions. Uri
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.