Author: José Carlos
Date: 00:08:36 03/11/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 10, 2004 at 18:29:31, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 10, 2004 at 16:04:32, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On March 10, 2004 at 14:41:47, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On March 10, 2004 at 14:23:29, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>> >>>>On March 09, 2004 at 16:05:15, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>> >>>>>Yet no top program does this, and they had a human correct it >>>>>afterwards in Deep Blue. The conclusion should be obvious. >>>> >>>>Is that so? >>>> >>>>>If you can develop a *top level* evaluation function, better than >>>>>good human tuning, solely on learning from a GM games database, >>>>>you deserve an award. Nobody has succeeded before. >>>> >>>>Jonathan Schaeffer learned weights in Checkers [Chinook] without even using a >>>>human games database (he used TD learning). The weights he tuned score 50% >>>>against his hand-tuned code. >>>> >>>>I learned weights in Chess [Crafty] using 32k positions, hill-climbing an >>>>ordinal correlation measure. It too scores 50% against the hand-tuned code. >>> >>>How many games and what time control? >>>There is a difference if you score 50% with 2 games and with 2000 games? >>> >>>It is also possible that you get 50% against Crafty but less against other >>>opponents. >>> >>> >>>>Given Deep Sjeng's source code, I could zero its evaluation function weights, >>>>and learn them from GM games to score 50% against the weights you have right now >>>>too. >>> >>>You may be right but you cannot know about source code that you do not know. >> >>With his method, he will eventually reach a good result with any engine. >>It uses generations, and discards the weaker ones absorbing the stronger ones. >>After long enough waiting, it must become stronger. > >The question is how much time is long enough. >It is clear that there is a way to find the best setting after enough time. > >Even the simple way of testing every possible setting can find the best setting >if you only have 10^1000 years to wait. The number of possible settings is infinite, so this method can't be sure to find the best settings. José C. >The point is that you do not have infinite time and I am not happy with >improvement "after long enough waiting" when I do not know how long is long >enough. > >The question is simply practical question and not theoretical. >If you see improvement in Crafty thanks to Dave's method it means that his >method has good chances also to help other engines. > >If you see improvement with more programs then it increase the hope that his >method is going to work but I do not think that you can prove that it works for >every program. > >Uri
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.