Author: José Carlos
Date: 07:07:15 06/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2004 at 07:04:26, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >On June 01, 2004 at 04:52:32, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On June 01, 2004 at 04:45:12, José Carlos wrote: >> >>>On June 01, 2004 at 04:39:10, Sune Fischer wrote: >>> >>>>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. >>> >>> Human elo is also "fake elo" by that reasoning. >> >>Yes it is in a way, IMO. >>It's hard to prevent with humans of course, the solution could be FRC :) >> >>> To me, chess is much more than >>>search and evaluation. To you, it isn't. >> >>To me chess is so much more than memorizing book lines. >>To you this is the main thing. >> >>> Ok, that's your opinion and I repect it. >> >>Ditto :) >> >>-S. >>> José C. > >Ok, it's a matter of taste of course. I'm with Sune on this one. > >Note that being a chess engine developer is different than being a chess player. >As a chess player, if you don't memorize a certain amount of theory, no matter >how much you dislike doing so, it will cost you some games. > >As an engine developer, it's perfectly reasonable to restrict yourself to the >engine algorithm itself, and let the existing tools handle the opening & >associated learning issues. It's what software engineers call "modularity" :-) > >Vas Sure it is. But the same could be said about time management. That module can be developed/investigated apart from the rest of the program. Or search and eval. Could work together (some programs prune based on eval) but a simple interface is enough and search and eval can be researched as different modules. Note that my point is that book related tools can be also subject of a most interesting research. Learning, for example. You have a limited space (you don't want your learned data to get huge) and some fuzzy information (this line looks promising or bad). You can use information about your opponent (rating reported by winboard, or name of well known opponents). You make your decisions upon statistic information (a games database + your own games), the result of your search (this position looks good but I've lost the game), the game (I think I made a mistake later but this position is acceptable), your opponent's moves (his first move out of my book just killed me, I'll add to my own book)... There's a huge universe to research about book, and it is interesting if you're ready to think carefully about it. And finally, competition is about winning games under the rules. Kasparov can repeat the same opening against a program with no learning, and kill it 200-0 with only two different games. That program looks _stupid_ to the world. If you change Kasparov in that example for another program, you got a smart program and a stupid program. But as I told to Sune, it's a matter of taste. I like the program to do everything but moving the wood pieces on the board! José C.
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.