Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 08:04:52 06/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2004 at 10:07:15, José Carlos wrote: > 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). It's not learning in an intelligent way, if you displace just one piece one square it will be a completely different line to the book. Book learning is really more of a database management, learning is just too fancy a word for something so relative primitive. An intelligent learner would adjust the game play itself, ie. parameter weights would be tuned so that entire classes of openings were avoided in the future. This could also be applied throughout the whole game and not just the opening. But in a small tournament of just 10-15 games you can't really improve the book a whole lot, improving the book is really something you have to do _prior_ to the tournament. The only hope once the tournament begins is to try and repeat games, and that's just lame and annoying. Duplicate games is a waste of everyones time and patience, they should not be allowed to count twice anyway, one game - one win. > 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. You argue well but it's not exactly rocket science, not compared to some of the other challenges in chess programming. ;) > 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! There's gotta be a better and more interesting way than to just repeat won games, if that's all there is to it then I'll happily swallow my duplicate losses with pride. ;) -S. > José C.
This page took 0.01 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.