Author: Reinhard Scharnagl
Date: 07:24:47 11/25/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 2003 at 09:34:28, Sune Fischer wrote: Hi Sune, >On November 25, 2003 at 04:02:45, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: > >>On November 25, 2003 at 03:59:07, Richard Pijl wrote: >> >>Hi Richard, >> >>[...] >>> So, you should probably go all the way (forbid all precomputed results in any >>> form, also the hardcoded variants without external files) or allow everything >>> (that is legal, e.g. considering copyrights), like it is now. >> >>... as I proposed in [http://www.rescon.de/Compu/schachfair_e.html]: >> >>The size of a chess engine including its used persitant data has to be limited >>on approximately 1/4 MB, based on a strongly compressed form which could be >>achieved using high-quality packers. This has different reasons. It is not to >>provoke any competition e.g. in hiding pre-compressed components, and also the >>choice of a programming language thereby might have less effect on the relevant >>measuring size. System DLLs (without any relationship to chess) naturally >>should not been taken into account. >I don't like that proposal. So simply make a better one. >1/4 MB is completely arbitrary, with some compilers you get close to this just >with a "hello world" program. Please explain, even after packing it into a *.RAR file? Hardly to believe! >I prefer to use C++ which in my experience has a tendency to produce bigger >executables, should I really be forced to use C or even assembly just to comply >with some silly size of binary limitation? You additionally will notice, that C++ compiled executables will pack much better than others produced directly via assembler. So packing before measuring the size is a really fair method. >That won't help A.I. one bit I can tell you that. Forcing to use only strictly reduced means always helps to make things more efficient (and overmore: comparable). >Also you should re-think that 'persistant' data idea, an algorithm is also >persistant data. You are absolutely right. The distinction between persistant data and persistant algorithms is only semiotic and completely irrelevant in this case. >If I write in my code: > > if (ImUnderSeriousAttack()) > score -= huge_danger; > >then that is persistant data. Correct! >All kinds of knowledge is persistant, >whether you get the result from an algorithm or a table >is just a matter of speed tuning. That is why it would not make any sense to distinguish between code and data when measuring. >A.I. research is actually about becomming smarter based on experience, so you >have a need to store things, e.g. history tables is a little A.I. in the search. If such tables will be filled dynamically, they will be measured by zero. So I do not see any problem. >IMO the most interesting (not necessarily the best) solution would be if the >programs started without book and slowly generated them by experience. That is one reason why I am often arguing for the inreased use of FRC. >Even more interesting if they started with no knowledge of the game rules and no >algorithms and weights set to zero, but you have to start *somewhere* :) I have not understood your last idea, sorry. Regards, Reinhard.
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.