Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 14:14:21 10/03/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 03, 1998 at 14:25:45, Moritz Berger wrote: >I think that "intermixing opponents" might change the performance insofar as >Fritz tries to hit the same weak spot over and over again as long as the >opponents allows. Imagine a program like M-Chess which tries to repeat even lost >lines and tries to find improvements towards the end of its book line and beyond >with positional learning in some cases (I guess this behaviour depends upon >evals during the previous game which M-Chess lost). Fritz might win several >times in a row by staying within the same ECO system. > >If Fritz had won against M-Chess, tried the same line against Junior 5 (maybe >Fritz lost), and then meets M-Chess again, it will try to chose a different type >of opening first before stumbling upon this weak spot again. > >In the long run you are perfectly right that lifetime learning isn't influenced >by "intermixing". That's the main reason why I completely disagree with Uri: > >Having no learning at all (PowerBook on CD) or having learning data from 2000 >games against 15 different opponents makes a HUGE difference, even if playing >against "unknown" opponents. In this case, it doesn't matter if opponents had >played in "matches" or in "intermixed", isolated games. It doesn't matter to whom? It matters to Blass, since he has an unlearned Powerbook. It matters in fact to everyone. What you say above is true in theory and doesn't apply in practice. None of us has the learned Powerbook after 2,000 games. It doesn't exist. I agree there is this huge difference you mention between a learned and an unlearned book. And, if I am not mistaken, this is precisely Blass' point. I think it matters to know what is being measured when we quantify and rate. Enrique >Moritz
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.