Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:44:55 06/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2004 at 18:22:18, Sune Fischer wrote: >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. If it can "use" it, yes... > >>> >>>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. I don't consider it "unfortunate". It is an integral part of the game of chess, whether there is an opening book or not. A program has to "change" over time or it will get rolled up into a ball, chewed up, and spit out by good humans... Just take a program like shredder, give it _one_ opening book line, and stick it on ICC and see what happens after a while... > >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. "annoying feature"??? +no+ human chess event has _ever_ been held under similar circumstances. IE if you play an opening once, you have to play it over and over no matter how badly you get smashed by some new innovation. Makes absolutely no sense, IMHO. We write programs to play chess under the same guidelines that humans play under, but then we decide to change the rules _after_ the cat is out of the bag, and it doesn't feel "reasonable" to me... > > >>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? Apparently not in that learning is critical. Particularly the learning when openings are _bad_. Of course what is bad for one side is good for the other so it does cut both ways and there is little to do about that... > >-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.