Author: Reinhard Scharnagl
Date: 08:23:54 01/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2004 at 11:10:55, Tony Werten wrote: >On January 14, 2004 at 10:47:56, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: > >>On January 14, 2004 at 10:35:38, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>Hello Uri, >> >>learning is possible from success or from failures. (And I hope not to have >>made you angry by the above.) >> >>Failures (in opposit to successes) mostly can be localized at a special point of >>history (you correctly demands that dependance). >> >>But loosing a game can be completely independent from the opening moves. >> >>Without being able to localize the probably point of error (with a lot more than >>low random chance) how could there be a correct implementing of experiences? >Does it matter ? Yes. Doing things like that avoids 'real' learning. >If opening theorie says a certain book position is winning, yet >your engine keeps loosing it, you'd better avoid that position. May be. As I have written, it might be successfull, especially within badly minimaxed opening books. Would you decide to never leave your home, when something evil has happened to you outside? When we all would practice such a kind of 'learning', we all have to commit suicide - seems to be a bad idea. >Of coarse, if you change your engine and suddenly it does understand the >position, you'd better throw away the learnfiles. Of course, but you still should try to learn by avoiding errors. 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.