Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:06:37 05/31/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2004 at 19:01:35, José Carlos wrote: >On May 31, 2004 at 18:33:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 31, 2004 at 18:29:09, Matthias Gemuh wrote: >> >>>On May 31, 2004 at 15:08:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On May 31, 2004 at 13:41:39, Miroslav Nikolic wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hardware: PIII 800MHz, 256Mb RAM >>>>>OS: Windows Xp >>>>>GUI: Chessprogram8 (Fritz 8) >>>>>Tournament: 10x8x40min, round robin, 8 rounds >>>>>Time control: 40'/40, 40'/40 + 40' (rest) >>>>>Hash: 32 MB >>>>>Ponder: off >>>>>Resign: on >>>>>Tablebase: Nalimov 4-pieces >>>>>TB Cache : 6 MB >>>>>Book used: DeepFritz7.ctg for Deep Fritz, H8 for Hiarcs, Select.ctg (by me) >>>>>for others >>>>>Book learning: off >>>> >>>> >>>>Just a question: Why would you want to turn off a part of a chess program that >>>>is not easy to develop in the first place? IE book learning is a part of many >>>>engines. Turning it off makes no sense to me... any more than turning off >>>>passed pawn evaluation or selective search capabilities... >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Strange logic ! >>>How can one compare book learning with passed pawn evaluation or selective >>>search ? >> >>Very simple. >> >>1. I added passed pawn logic to address weaknesses that needed help, in >>Crafty's particular playing style. >> >>2. I _specifically_ designed the opening book around book learning. I have >>_no_ hand-tailored lines, my book is made by sucking in reams of PGN data and >>then relying on learning to discover which lines are bad or unplayable. >> >>Is this hard to understand? If I had a hand-customized book, I wouldn't care, >>but I don't, and turning off the learning facility simply makes _zero_ sense... >> >>>To make sure that the outcome of a tournament does not depend on order >>>of opponents, book learning has to be switched off. >> >> >>That's nonsense. Does a human have to do a "brain purge" between opponents? >> >> >> >>>This cannot be said of passed pawn evaluation or selective search. >>>IE to learn against A and use that knowledge to kill B leads to a different >>>outcome than to learn against B and use that knowledge to kill A ! >>>What has this got to do with passed pawn evaluation or selective search ? >> >> >> >>See above. I think it is simply time to disable this feature completely so it >>is always on as it should be... I only have it for testing so that two versions >>don't try to update the book at the same time and corrupt it. >> >> >> >>> >>>/Matthias. > > Some people seem to think that the book is something different from the >engine. They speak of the engine like "the part that analyzes", or something >like that. They run unified book tournaments and disable book learning. The GUI >makes the tablebase moves. All fine for me as long as they understand what the >result will mean, ie the winner would be a very good partner for the chess >player to analyze his games, not "the strongest program". > This idea can be taken even further: the GUI might also control the time to >think, putting the engine in analyze mode and deciding when to spend more time >and when to make the current move. A unified time management algorithm would >mean another step towards the "analyzer tournament". This algorithm could be >made public domain and implemented in every GUI. > I, myself, perfer to test the whole thing, the full program, and try to beat >it with mine. Just a matter of taste, I guess... > > José C. I don't understand all this "fiddling". IE oddball books. ponder=on vs ponder=off, endgame tables on, endgame tables off. Learning on. Learning off. Etc. I would have no objection if someone plays a long match, crafty vs program S, then clears the learning data and plays a long match crafty vs program T. But not disabling learning completely. Then I _know_ the book will cause a problem... Because it isn't hand-tuned whatsoever...
This page took 0.03 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.