Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 15:22:18 06/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2004 at 14:11:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>Book learning is really more of a database management, learning is just too >>fancy a word for something so relative primitive. > > >Does it matter? IE is there some threshold we have to cross and then you say >"ok, book learning is now a vital part of the chessplaying system and can't be >turned off."??? What _is_ that threshold. Why do you infer that mice can't >learn to navigate a complex maze, since they learn the _same_ way. They don't >study the maze from above and discover a path that they use once they enter the >maze. They just navigate it by trial and error and learn how to get through. >That is _exactly_ how book learning works. yes it will probably get more >sophisticated in the future. IE I already use search results to tune book >probabilities, as well as using the more crude win/lose result to mark lines as >"don't play". IE what I am doing is above what the mice do, and it will get >better over time, too... > Anything can be called learning then, if I fill out a form and the data is stored into a database, then the database has "learned" something new. >> >>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. > >I do this already... in a different way... > > >>This could also be applied throughout the whole game and not just the opening. > > >as in "position learning" as a first crude step? > Depends what you do in position learning. :) >>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. >> > >Wrong. _DEAD_ wrong. Against the computer I would probably play the most >popular opening move every time. If it walks into a trap, I will lose 1/2 of >the games since you have cleverly disabled my defense against this. Even though >a Human would not play the same moves every time, the computer is forced to do >so because of some twisted idea that "book learning is not part of the engine." > >Strange, but the first time I lost an evans gambit as black, I chose to not play >that again for a while. I didn't study anything. I didn't think about it. I >didn't ask anyone, I just didn't play that opening as black. > >It seems that I violates some golden rule by not doing so, according to this >thread... Unfortunately you need learning if you're up against other aggressive learners, such as humans. What I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong with doing a tournament here or there where this annoying feature has been disabled to everyones delight. >You are lost in the wrong world. It is not nearly so much about repeating "won" >games as it is about not repeating _lost_ games. Perhaps that is the point you >are missing. I would happily give up "won learning". But not "lost learning". So you agree? -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.