Author: martin fierz
Date: 11:33:08 12/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2003 at 09:28:13, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On December 17, 2003 at 18:20:09, martin fierz wrote:
>
>>On December 17, 2003 at 12:38:45, Daniel Clausen wrote:
>>
>>>On December 17, 2003 at 09:35:16, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>And, as I suggested previously, if, after a program leaves book, it is
>>>>in an obviously won or lost position, the game gets aborted and the next
>>>>one started. There is no place for "book kills" when the goal is a time
>>>>handicap match.
>>>
>>>In order to reduce threads like 'this opening position is lost! no it's not! yes
>>>it is! it's lost when you use bitboards! but fisher would win this position vs
>>>DB!' it would be good to 'formalize' won/lost positions after the opening.
>>>
>>>You could declare an opening won/lost if one of the engines evaluates its first
>>>move out of book with a score outside a predefined score-window [X, Y]. ([-0.5,
>>>+0.5] could be an example) Some points:
>>>
>>>- I intentionally used two variables so it's possible to have an assymetric
>>>window (no clue whether that could be helpful or not)
>>>- You don't capture positions where a human being with comp-chess knowledge
>>>knows, that one engine _will_ lose but the scores of the engines won't catch it
>>>- the scores for this score-window have to be adjusted (+1 should mean approx 1
>>>pawn advantage)
>>>- everything else I forgot :)
>>>
>>>Ideas? Comments? Shrieking epitaphs?
>>>
>>>Sargon
>>>
>>>PS. It's funny - we often claim that "{small number} games are not enough!" but
>>>now we still make this experiment ;)
>>
>>
>>why not just run a nunn / nunn2 match, or select a few openings for this match
>>to be played with both sides? this would remove the book dependence of the
>>match.
>>
>>cheers
>> martin
>
>
>well-known positions are bad. Too easy to tune specifically for them, which
>is a problem.
let me repeat, this time with CAPITALS:
why not just run a nunn / nunn2 match, OR SELECT A FEW OPENINGS FOR THIS MATCH
to be played with both sides?
i understand you could tune for a nunn/nunn2 match, although i doubt that any
such tuning would be very effective. tuning for a single test position, very
easy. tuning for a test set, harder. tuning for a multitude of game positions
where there is no solution, very hard IMO. if your program really plays better
in the nunn2 match thanks to some tuning in 2x20 games, then i guess it is
simply a stronger engine.
if you get somebody to select a few openings, then nobody can tune in advance.
cheers
martin
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.