Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 12:40:33 02/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2002 at 14:13:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >I claim that such is _impossible_. You might get the error down to .0001% if >you are very lucky. But that is not zero, and it will fail. Just a quick question. I didn't manage to read the whole thread so I don't know the whole context, but is there any reason why the pruning rules aren't allowed to fail, ever? >>The pruning rules should detect illogical moves and reduce the size of the chess >>tree. >> >>They should not resuce it to 0. >> >>If you prune in every move only 40% of the possible moves you are goinbg to >>reduce the size of the chess tree significantly but you are not going to solve >>chess. > >Correct. The error rate will be so huge that it won't prove anything at all >about the game. Wow, wow, hold on a little here. Sure, it won't prove anything. Still, I'm pruning >80% of my moves, and my program still plays damned fine chess. Sure, I'm not proving anything, but it's still winning games nicely. And you know what? You are, too. >>I do not think that you need billions of lines and I believe that some millions >>may be enough because one rule can be good for many position. > >Pick an iron-clad position where you can eliminate a move for a specific >reason. And let's see if we can break it. Then you fix it. Then we >break it. And this goes on almost forever... Sure, sure, if you can't possibly accept that it'll never fail. But I'll be happy as soon as it's correct more than it fails, i.e. when it starts getting productive. >No it isn't. Any good software engineering book will explain the problems and >why software is in the shape it is in today. The concept of a "bug-free >program" is and always will be an oxymoron, when "program" means something with >thousands of lines. Insert obligatory Knuth quote here ;) >>>Note that Junior5 pruned under promotions in it search and in I think that in >>more than 99% of the games it caused no problems. > >but in 1% it caused it to blunder. The more you prune, the more those >probabilities add up... The more the gains add up, too ... >And 1000 rules isn't going to be even _close_ to what you need. You did some kind of experiment to support this hypothesis, or is it just an unfounded unsubstantiated claim to support whatever point you're trying to make? -- GCP
This page took 0.01 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.