Author: blass uri
Date: 14:22:10 10/19/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 1998 at 16:18:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... I think that there is also a difference between crafty vs crafty matches and crafty vs other programs matches. 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.