Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 01:39:10 06/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2004 at 04:04:57, José Carlos wrote: >On June 01, 2004 at 03:44:59, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On June 01, 2004 at 03:27:37, José Carlos wrote: >> >>>> >>>>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? >>> >>> >>> I disagree but I think we can agree that it's a matter of taste. IMO, Ruffian >>>has a very good selective search. Using your reasoning, we could say "if Ruffian >>>beats Crafty we can draw the conclusion that Ruffian has a much better selective >>>search, but the result is not fair, it should use only null move. Otherwise, the >>>comparison is nonsense". :) >> >>Yesterday I played a few games on fics against a Crafty clone, I think it was >>already game 5 where Crafty managed to repeat a won game. >>I was very close to resigning already at move 10, the position was not lost at >>that point but I knew the game would be of course. >> >>More importantly, where is the _fun_ in that, why even play the game? >>Who in the world gets a kick out of seeing the same games over and over? >> >>-S. > > In my opinion, the fun is exactly in figuring out an algorithm to avoid that >Crafty clone beating you twice with the same line. Don't you think it is fun to >be smarter than a smart opponent? > > José C. No I prefer to focus on the algorithms and evaluation. Book learning is "fake elo", you only cheat yourself into thinking the engine is better than it really is. -S.
This page took 0.02 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.