Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:12:40 10/19/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 1998 at 17:22:10, blass uri wrote: > >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 I'm not sure I understand your comment, because obviously crafty and other programs are different. But I try to tune the eval terms to play the best chess I can make it play. Adding random "fuzz" will only weaken it, not help it...
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.