Author: Reinhard Scharnagl
Date: 07:19:03 01/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2004 at 07:52:19, Uri Blass wrote: >I think that learning can be very effective. > >An engine that does not learn may lose the same games again and again after >enough games. > >I use learning for matches of 4 games that are popular in Leo's tournament and >my learning is simply to choose a different first move after a loss. Is this real 'learning', or an escaping into a not yet refuted randomizing? >With my very small manually edited book(only few hundreds of positions) there >are big chances that movei will lose the same game twice if I do not do it. > >For testing I prefer to use the nunn2 match and test suites. Nevertheless that behaviour really may produce success, it is not what I would call learning. But you are not alone using the word 'learning' that way. Before claiming something being able to learn, please specify, what is learning. I still cannot do this sufficiently. Regards, Reinhard.
This page took 0.01 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.