Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:35:38 01/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2004 at 10:19:03, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >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. Every behaviour of a program that is dependent on the history of games is learning. Uri
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.