Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:44:02 06/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2004 at 20:46:45, Sune Fischer wrote: >On June 01, 2004 at 20:18:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>>>If it can "use" it, yes... >>> >>>"use" it, certainly. >>>The next time someone searches for that piece of data it will be there. >> >>Not the same thing. I don't use data crafty "learns". Crafty creates the data, >>saves it, and uses it later, all without my assistance. That's the point... it >>is something created by the program, for the program. > >Huh? >So if the scientist helps the rat find through the maze the first few times, the >rat is not learning? That's your words, not _mine_. I _always_ claimed that the rat is learning. And the program is learning as well. Crude to be sure. But crude learning _is_ learning... > >If I manually code new lines into the book, the book has certainly "learned" >something new. Now we resort to semantics. Put your program on ICC, leave for 12 hours, and see how it does. Mine will do fine because it _will_ learn, _by itself_ which book lines are good and bad.. If you have to help yours "learn" then it is worthless since you can't be everywhere it plays. I don't have that limitation, so long as someone doesn't turn it off. > >Ever heard of "learning with a teacher"? :) Ever heard of learning alone? The "teacher" is what I chose to eliminate when I started the book learning development in Crafty. I did it the "teacher" way far too long. It is much more fun now. > >>>You think ICC games, I think home basement games. >> >>Same thing... >> > >Absolutely not, ICC is worthless for systematic testing. >You never know what your opponent is using, if he changed from last time etc. Ditto for basement tests as well. There are ways to do testing, but just "playing games" is not a good one. > >There is no way you can measure progress under those conditions, unless we are >talking really huge progress. Absolutely wrong. I've been improving Crafty using _only_ ICC games for years now. If you only look at 1's and 0's, you might have a problem at times, but with so many games per week even that can work. But you get more than win or lose, if you take the time to look. > >>>Controlled environment, guaranteed no aggressive learners, reproducability, >>>etc.. >>> >> >>Guaranteed unfair book advantage, etc... > >If you call me a whiner for wanting to turn learning off, then I'm going to call >you a whiner for wanting to turn it on :) > >>>See above, this isn't the same guidelines as with humans. >>>These are controlled experiments. >> >>Hardly. Non-repeatable openings. Non-repeatable timing. Very uncontrolled >>experiments, actually. That is part of the computer chess problem at times... >>Unless you get hung up in the same opening game after game... > >You can take further steps to make it even more controlled, just didn't want to >go into that. > >>>>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"? :) >> >>Is losing by book repeatedly interesting??? >> > >No, therefore let's turn off that crap. You _are_ reading what I write? If you turn it off, I _will_ lose repeatedly. That was my point... >:) > >-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.