Author: James Swafford
Date: 19:17:04 08/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 01, 2002 at 22:12:27, James Swafford wrote: >You're serious? :) > >I just got home from Edmonton. Let me think on this... >Six months is definitely not doable. I graduate in December, >and I've gotta hella course load this Fall. But I might >consider a 12 month wager. > >If you're serious, let me know, and then let me think on it >for a day or two. I don't know if I want to take your money yet. >(Are you talking about "Amateur" ?) Agh... you said "new player". You do realize we live 2300-2500 miles apart, right? I don't live in San Diego anymore. :) But I'd sure like to visit on your dime... > >And yeah, I think open source is fine. > >-- >James > >BTW... how big is your family? :)) > > >On July 31, 2002 at 23:38:56, Will Singleton wrote: > >>On July 31, 2002 at 21:33:29, James Swafford wrote: >> >>>On July 31, 2002 at 17:49:05, Jay Scott wrote: >>> >>>>On July 30, 2002 at 22:43:36, James Swafford wrote: >>>> >>>>>why isn't >>>>>everyone doing it?? >>>> >>>>In my view, it's because top chess programmers are amazingly conservative. Or to >>>>look at it more positively, they have a lot of time invested in and knowledge >>>>gained about their traditional manual methods, and they do not believe in making >>>>big changes. It's hard to argue with success! >>>> >>>>Over the years I've posted a bunch of machine learning suggestions (few of them >>>>original to me) to rec.games.chess.computer and to this forum. Maybe it's my >>>>writing style or something, but in every single case the general first reaction >>>>was to ignore or dismiss the idea. That happened even when I pushed opening book >>>>learning, which was not used in chess programs at the time but has become common >>>>since. Arthur Samuels' classic checkers program already used a similar kind of >>>>rote learning, so nobody should call it a radical new idea, but despite >>>>seemingly obvious advantages it somehow took decades to show up in chess >>>>programs. >>>> >>>>Another problem is that many of the people who've played around with learning >>>>algorithms were only playing around. It takes serious knowledge to create a good >>>>learning program, and different serious knowledge to create a good playing >>>>program, and you have to have both to get really impressive results. Nobody's >>>>done it yet. >>>> >>>>My advice for those who have great new ideas: Implement them yourself and become >>>>a smashing success. *That's* convincing. The only problem is that to become a >>>>smashing success, you'll also have to implement a lot of great old ideas. >>> >>>I agree with you. I have studied TD-Leaf for a while, and I am definitely >>>going to pursue creating a strong TD chess player. >>> >>>One of my biggest concerns was the time to train a complex evaluator. >>>I spoke with Rich Sutton about this today, and he convinced me that it's >>>doable. >>> >>>-- >>>James >> >>James, >> >>From my work with checkers, chess and td algorithms, I would have to disagree. >>I would be thrilled to be proven wrong, but there's better ways to do chess than >>td learning. At least for the present. I suspect it will be a interesting >>experiment, though. >> >>I'll offer a proposition. I'm working on a new program based on standard, >>well-known techniques. I assume from your comments that you are working on a TD >>chess player. Six months from now, let's have a match, open source code. Loser >>pays for winner's trip (incl family, round-trip) to loser's home city for dinner >>and drinks. >> >>How about it? >> >>Will
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.