Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:56:57 06/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2004 at 03:01:46, Sune Fischer wrote: >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? Reverse the argument. Crafty vs Fritz. No learning. But Fritz has a book that has been hand-tuned by a full-time human working on the book. Is _that_ a fair test then. In one case an engine learns by itself and it is turned off. In the other case, the engine learns by a human hand-tuning the book, but _that_ isn't turned off. Perhaps I miss the point, therefore? It isn't balanced either way... At least with learning, the hand-tuned book won't win the _same_ opening repeatedly... > >> 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 0.01 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.