Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:41:11 12/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 2003 at 14:33:08, martin fierz wrote:
>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 can play when I know the rules. :) So I will respond, highlighting the
important part:
"Why not just run a nunn / nunn2 match"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
I responded to that part. "Well known positions are bad." That was all
I responded to. "select a few openings" would _obviously_ not be "well known
positions..."
>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.
>
that last sentence was all I was suggesting. The first part of your
suggestion had what I considered to be an important "loophole". There have
been _plenty_ of cases of programmers tuning for particular positions,
or particular openings, or whatever...
>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.