Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:14:42 10/19/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 1998 at 14:25:23, blass uri wrote: > >On October 18, 1998 at 13:41:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 18, 1998 at 12:13:34, Alessio Iacovoni wrote: >> >>>1) Shouldn't computer strenght it rather be measured on "average" entry-level >>>computers.. i.e. the ones actually used by the majority of people? >>> >>>2) Also.. do programs benefit in the same way from higher speed and increased >>>hash tables? If not, tests would not be comparable, therefore useless. >>> >>>3) Why are books used in tests? Shouldn't a top level computer program be >>>capable of doing at least decently in the opening phase *without* resorting to >>>it's book? If the answer is no.. then it could be easily beaten by even >>>lower-performing computers by having it systematically go out of book. Or am I >>>wrong? >> >>Computers would do just as well without a book as a human that had *never*seen >>an opening book. And I'd bet the human would fall into many of the same sorts >>of "traps" that the computer would. But even worse, the computer would tend >>to play the same opening every time, since the tree search is deterministic. > >There are some variable in the evaluation function that you can decide that they >will not be constants > >For example suppose you have a positional bonus for a pawn in the 5th rank of >0.2 pawn. >You can decide that the positional bonus will be different(0.23 pawn or 0.17 >pawn) >You can decide before every move to change the positional bonuses by a small >random number and it may cause the program not to play the same opening every >time. > >Uri Sure... but it can also make it play *weaker* in addition to playing more random...
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.