Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 08:00:19 11/25/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 2003 at 10:24:47, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >>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. I think how good the zipper or compiler may be is irrelevant to the level of A.I. in the exe. More lines of source code will in general produce a better more sophisticated A.I. capable program, so I believe the effect will be the opposite of what you intend. >>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). Size of binary is not an interesting metric as far as I can see. Like I said intelligence and size is probably inversely related, if anything. >>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. The programme would have to start over from scratch every new game, not very ideal, IMO. The main idea of A.I. is that it gets better from game to game (no human interference inbetween), thus it needs to be stored in *.learn files of some kind. When a program is released it may come with some data files, and it's impossible for us to know if that data has been generated by the programs learning algorithm or filled by hand from a human. >>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. Here we agree :) >>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. If you take away all resistant knowledge there is no program left :) -S. >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.