Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 00:01:46 06/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2004 at 02:49:55, José Carlos wrote: >On June 01, 2004 at 02:33:18, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On May 31, 2004 at 20:06:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>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... >> >>I don't see what is so interesting in trying to win the same games over and >>over. That kind of book cooking hasn't got very much to do with smarts of the >>engine, IMO. >> >>Most programmers are interested in real algorithmic progress, not in whether >>they can win every game just by getting the same couple of completely won >>positions out of the book. > > > Book learning, as well as any other kind of learning, is a nice algorithmic >exercise. It takes time to develope and fine tuning. Disabling it is telling the >programmer "you wasted your spare time". It's a very powerful feature, too powerful IMO if not all engines have it. I'm quite sure even Ruffian would lose 10-90 if Crafty had aggressive learning and Ruffian just used a small book without learning. You can be of the opinion that's a fair result, I think it is pure nonsense. Granted, it demonstrates that Crafty has learning that works, but what other conclusions can you hope to draw from it? > As for getting won positions out of book... isn't that what a book is finally >meant to do, after all? For me it's to get the game started at a random point, to avoid determanistic engines playing the same game every time. I don't want a completely won position out of book anymore than I want a completely lost one. I want to see the engine play and win/lose the games for itself, that's what it's all about, IMO. >Don't human players try to do this all the time? When I >played in tournaments, I got a couple of full points out of book. I studied >games of my opponents, found weaknesses in their openings and analyzed them with >my brothers (computers were too weak back then). Nice memories of the past... Sure if book programming your interest, I'm interested in engine programming :) Books only serve to obscure the picture in my view. -S. > José C.
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.