Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:16:03 12/18/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2003 at 18:32:21, Peter Berger wrote: >On December 18, 2003 at 18:18:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 18, 2003 at 16:14:58, Peter Berger wrote: >> >>>On December 18, 2003 at 15:58:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On December 18, 2003 at 15:45:17, Peter Berger wrote: >>> >>>But I really can't understand how you can say that Crafty likes variety against >>>computers - with default settings it certainly has the narrowest book against >>>computers from all engines I have ever seen. And I really think this is a very >>>bad idea as partially also shown in this match. Thank good that even the 3% >>>moves sometimes show up eventually - it might save Crafty's head in this match >>>;). >>> >> >>You missed my point. I mentioned "ICC". There variety is _critical_ or >>the opponents keep finding book lines that lead to trouble for Crafty. With >>a wide book, they have a much harder time. For matches, I would certainly play >>with "aggressive learning". As far as "3% moves" I don't know what that might >>be. IE I don't (to the best of my knowledge) have any "play 3%" lines in my >>book. > >Did I really miss your point? At ICC some of your opponents are computers too. >You will face them with the same book as used here - wrong? Wrong, yes. First, program A plays crafty a game, and then goes away to try to cook up something. Or if he plays crafty (or a crafty clone) and wins, he moves on to either crafty or another clone and tries that _exact_ same opening again. Hence my comment about "the book must be wide on ICC". I've only been playing there for 8+ years now. I _have_ seen most of the problems and developed approaches to solve many of them. Just go there and play 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with a narrow book, and see what happens... >To call Crafty's >book wide is really wrong - I will try to reach you the last time with this >message, aware that I am _most_ probably not the first one to come up with this >anyway. To answer your second question: given 1. e4 e5, Crafy being white: what >is the probability that it will play 2. Bc4 against a computer? 10% of the time: move played % score learn CAP sortv P% P Nf3! 152593 81 0.11 0.27 -655.36 14041.0 90 Y Bc4! 6913 3 0.07 0.00 -655.36 12046.3 10 Y that 3% you are quoting is the "percent of the time this was played in all the games in enormous.pgn, after 1. e4 e5. Bc4 was played 3% of the time. Crafty plays it about once out of every 10 games. However, once you are past that point, the book is _wide open_. So I don't understand your usage of the term "narrow". IE from here on in the game the program can choose from _any_ variation in the Bishop's opening that it wants... > >>If you try to use it in an important way, the best idea is to ask. :) Then >>I can tell you how I would do it. And in a match against a single opponent, >>I'd go for aggressive learning and put the onus on the opponent to thwart it >>if it can. :) > >It is not for me to decide if I used Crafty in an important way. I certainly >used Crafty exactly as you recommended it for this match. If my memory failed >and I misunderstood one of your recommendations as archived in the CCC files, >please point out the message I missed - I will simply redo the match. I don't believe we ever discussed how it should be set up. I was simply addressing the "book learning issue". Nothing more, nothing less. You can play it "default" or you can set it for "aggressive learning." I didn't notice your asking _me_ specifically about how _I_ would tune it for a match vs a single opponent. It was your idea, you chose how to set things up, that's ok by me. If I were playing the match, I would do things differently, particularly with the learning issue. IE I didn't suggest this match in the first place, so I really didn't give it any serious thought. Amir brought up the 100:1 match, which was what _I_ was originally talking about. People play matches all the tie. Ponder=on, ponder=off, book=on, book=off, crafty book, fritz book, custom book. I simply don't pay that much attention to them. If I am interested in the outcome, _I_ run the experiment, so that I know what is going on and why. Everyone is certainly free to run things however they want, and to draw whatever conclusions they want. > >Peter
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.