Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: The importance of learning

Author: Tom Likens

Date: 09:43:11 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 ? If opening theorie says a certain book position is winning, yet
>your engine keeps loosing it, you'd better avoid that position.

It depends, am I playing Kasparov or Joe Patzer?  *Every* opening may be
losing if the answer is the former.

--tom

>
>Of coarse, if you change your engine and suddenly it does understand the
>position, you'd better throw away the learnfiles.
>
>Tony
>
>>
>>Regards, Reinhard.



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.