Author: martin fierz
Date: 02:03:04 12/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 2003 at 14:41:11, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>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.
of course - i could see that. only when you do that, it gives the impression
that you didn't read my original post. you could say: "playing nunn matches is
bad, because they may have been tuned for, but selecting some positions for this
match is ok".
then i would have the impression you read my post and we wouldn't have to resort
to CAPITALS or underscoring :-)
^^^^^^^^^^^^
cheers
martin
"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.