Author: Albert Silver
Date: 10:17:57 05/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 27, 2002 at 14:02:47, Uri Blass wrote:
I don't understand the purpose of changing the first move because of a loss.
This implies that the first move was the cause of the loss, when it could easily
(probably) been due to an error much later. If I play a wrong move in an Evans
Gambit and lose because I didn't see far enough, does that mean the fault was
1.e4?
If the plan is to learn from previous moves, I would imagine that if a time
control and the conditions (memory + CPU, etc.) is the same then it should play
the same first move instantly, presuming that identical conditions will produce
identical result, and then begin calculating again. The actual learning, to
rpevent repetition, should logically appear just before the move where the
evaluation dropped. Perhaps the program could be requested to begin studying the
first two moves prior to the drop in greater depth. Example, if the eval dropped
at move 6, then begin calculating at move 4 the same move, checking the log for
the last depth achieved, and requesting the program go one ply deeper to see if
it can detect the error. If no changes are found, then when it reaches the move
prior to the eval drop, it will of course exclude the losing move though
retaining the evaluation. Of course the request must respect the time control
algorithms. Finally, the reason the first move alone should be played instantly,
and not all the first moves before the perceived error, is that once it plays
one move instantly, the time left changes, and this means that the next move may
change now that it has more time to spend on its remaining moves.
I should point out that I have no real knowledge of how learning is done
nowadays, so it is essentially speculation.
Albert
>>Please make a difference between position learning and
>>booklearning. A program that's doing booklearning might
>>be brilliant, but it will keep on losing the same game
>
>In a match of 40 games there is no chance to lose the same game twice if
>you do simple learning that is only to change the first move after a loss
>
>If every first move is a book move then book learning is enough.
>
>The book may have some priorities so 1.e4 f6 is going to be played only if in
>the last 19 games with black you lost with all the alternatives.
>
>You can lose eqvivalent game(1.e4 e6 2.d4 and 1.d4 e6 2.e4) and in order to
>avoid this, a positional learning is needed.
>
>This means that if you get the same position that you lost twice you have to
>play a different move and the simplest way that I can think is that the program
>that lost with 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 may assume that 2...d5 is illegal after 1.d4 e6
>2.e4.
>
>The program may safely forget everything that is not in the last 20 games with
>the same color because the opponent should be a different opponent after 40
>games(it is also possible to do it after 21 games or 22 games with the same
>color to prevent problems and the only problem is in case that the program lost
>with all the alternatives with the same color in the first 20 games but it is
>not going to happen with one of the top programs.
>
>My point is that I guess that the top programs may get rating that is not more
>than 100 elo weaker than the rating that they got in the ssdf and in some cases
>they may beat again and again programs that has no position learning by moves
>like 1.h3 when the version with the fritz book is not going to do it because it
>is not going to get the opponent out of book in the first moves.
>
>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.