Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 15:57:19 06/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2004 at 18:44:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... "use" it, certainly. The next time someone searches for that piece of data it will be there. >> >>>> >>>>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... You think ICC games, I think home basement games. Controlled environment, guaranteed no aggressive learners, reproducability, etc.. >> >>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... > See above, this isn't the same guidelines as with humans. These are controlled experiments. >> >>>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... Yes. So we are back to square one, is winning by book "interesting"? :) -S.
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.