Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 02:04:45 05/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 2002 at 04:17:12, Uri Blass wrote: >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 That's why I included situation III. If you read further down to the last paragraph, a part you snipped, I allude to precisely this point.
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.