Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:18:41 10/19/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 1998 at 12:03:15, blass uri wrote: > >On October 19, 1998 at 10:14:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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... > >I do not think that more than 20 elo weaker if you change only by a small >number(every positional bonus will not be changed by more than 0.03 pawn). > >I do not think that the positional bonuses are optimal(I think that noone knows >and by doing games you can get get closer to optimal) >Another problem is that the optimal bonuses for Blitz may be different from the >optimal bonuses for slower time control. > >I think that for slower time control it may be better to increase the positional >bonuses but I am not sure about it. > >Uri The problem is that "20 Elo" is misleading. When you are talking about computer vs computer matches. A small change in one program often produces a big change in the match results, because that becomes the *only* thing that separates the programs... IE If I test two crafty versions that are identical, but let one use 1 cpu and the other use 2 cpus, I get huge margins of victory with 2 cpus, yet when I play that same test match against humans, the two cpu version will score somewhat better but not nearly so much as the crafty vs crafty match suggested...
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.