Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:10:56 05/23/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 23, 1998 at 14:18:04, Ren Wu wrote: >I think KK miss the point here. > >Don's paper has outlined a framework to apply TD methods to chess >evaluator. In fact, it is not just for chess, his framework can be >easily applied to most other games as well. And what it can learn is not >just piece values but can be any evaluaion terms. For me, the method, >or the way to solve the problem, is a lot more important. > >I doubt that the search depth will effect the knight value that much, >but that is once again not the point, the point here is the way doing >things, not the experiment results. > >If you suspect that search depth will effect the knight's value, why >don't you repeat the experiment but with greater depth? And report the >result here. Even if you come up a vast different values, there is still >no flaw in this framework, because you are still in the same framework. >The framework has no search depth limitations. > >There is no major flaw in that research. ( And maybe there was flaws in >your way to look things. :-) ) > >Ren (renw@iname.com) the biggest "flaw" was that Alan looked at "the result of the results" rather than at "the results". The learning looked good to me. Just because the piece values appear to be "a little different" is not cause for alarm IMHO. First, there's nothing to say that 1,3,5,9 are right (I don't use those, for example.) And there is also nothing to suggest that the values might be different depending on the "core" of the program being used to learn the values... IE a program with strong pawn structure analysis might have a pawn value > 1, while a strong tactician might have knight/queen != 3,9, and so forth...
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.