Author: Uri Blass
Date: 01:17:12 05/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 2002 at 02:54:16, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >I present 5 basic hypothetical situations that are relevant to the discussion in >this thread. Feel free to add more of course: > > >I. Kasparov and human Player A play a long match. Kasparov plays many very nice >opening novelties. After the match, Player A decides to employ these novelties >himself. Player A goes on to win many games and tournaments as a consequence. > >II. Program W does not yet have an opening book. It's programer decides to >compile an opening book, from many other sources. These sources consist of >analysis and games from other programs and players plus a small percentage that >is the programer's own original analysis. Program W goes on to win many games >and tournaments as a consequence. > >III. Program X employs an advanced opening learning heuristic. This heuristic >allows the program to learn opening continations and their effectiveness on its >own. It is pitted against Rebel by it's programer. They play several hundred 1 >minute bullet games. As a result, Program X has for the most part absorbed all >the most important opening continuations from Rebel. Program Y continues to >employ the opening learning heuristic against many other players and programs. >This includes games with long time controls of course. Program X goes on to win >many games and tournaments as a consequence. > >IV. Program Y employs a simple learning heuristic. This heuristic allows the >program to learn which opening lines are effective with and which lines are not. >This allows it to play the most effective continuations in its games. Programer >of Program Y copies the moves of Rebel's book, but not its evaluations. After a >great many self-play games it learns which lines it is most effective with. >Program Y goes on to win many games and tournaments as a consequence. > >V. Program Z does not possess a learning heuristic. Its programmer copies >Rebel's book along with its evaluations. Program Z goes on to win many games and >tournaments as a consequence. > > >My sparse commentary on the above follows: > >1. Of course, the normal case is I. Perfectly acceptable. A humans "book" is >largely derivative of others. > >2. You appear to be II, correct? This is also a normal case and the resulting >book is largely derivative of other peoples work too. > >3. I personally see no significant difference from I, II & III. > >4. IV appears to be a marginal case. Personally, I see nothing wrong with IV, >since the new evaluations are important enough to me to give its book sufficient >independent standing. > >5. I think that only V, is truly wrong. > > >One possible solution for you would be encrypt your book. This would take care >of IV & V. I am not sure about it. It is possible to copy Rebel's book by playing millions of games against it and trying everything that is possible. This process may be done automatically by a program that plays 1 minute/game time control against Rebel and resigns when Rebel is out of book. 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.