Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 09:27:44 06/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2004 at 11:56:57, Robert Hyatt 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? > >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... That's true, but I don't think it's Fritz's job to educate Crafty. When you turn learning off you test the two systems "as is". Ie. how strong is Crafty for those who go to your ftp and download it _right now_, compared to how strong is Fritz if you go and buy it, right now. I think that is a valid question and perhaps more relevant than asking how big Crafty's potential is if the user trains it for 500 games. -S.
This page took 0 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.