Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 14:17:54 12/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 2001 at 08:03:40, Sune Fischer wrote: >On December 29, 2001 at 07:48:38, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>>Still you dimensional search space is very large, and with each concensus eval >>>that expensive, you can't really afford a sloppy approach. >>>Genetic algorithms might do the job if you can define a good consensus/scoring >>>function, which is no trivial thing to do in the first place. >>> >>>-S. >> >>I think we're talking about different algorithms. My idea is for making a >>program play a known-good move, not to find ideal values for all eval weights. > >Well possibly, but when I read point number 3 I still see you comparing scoring >values (getting the deltas) and then apply a "sloppy" (no offense:) arbitrary >change in the weights. This can be done better I think, there is a lot of stuff >on tuning weights in the litterature, genetic algorithms is one of the really >big guns, and I believe this situation calls for some heavy artillery. Genetic algorithms are only good if the evaluation (of strength) function is fast. In chess, you have absolutely no hope of making this fast. -Tom
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.