Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 14:03:25 04/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 27, 2004 at 16:33:56, Pat King wrote: >On April 27, 2004 at 05:02:11, Stefano Gemma wrote: > >>Yes, i already use move ordering and iterative deepening. In my old programs i >>had used killer moves. In the new one, i'm trying something new (genetical >>algorithm etc). > >I've tried genetic algorithms before. Depending on how you implement them, >convergence will be extremely slow to non-existent! > >The obvious choice of keeping winners and throwing out losers proves absolutely >NOTHING after one game, and there have been many discussions on here that place >the number of games needed to detect a clear difference between programs at >5-30. When dealing with the very small differences between two sets of weights >in the same program, I don't think there's any upper limit to the games you >might need to draw a correct conclusion, and so instead of "evolving", you just >end up with a bunch of more or less random weights. > >Pat King Seems like you'd want to do some tuning using situations where one move is known to be better. Then you can tune for more subtle situations. Roger
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.