Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 03:49:28 06/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2004 at 10:51:36, Janos Keinrath wrote: >On June 01, 2004 at 07:04:26, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >>On June 01, 2004 at 04:52:32, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On June 01, 2004 at 04:45:12, José Carlos wrote: >>> >>>>On June 01, 2004 at 04:39:10, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>> >>>>>On June 01, 2004 at 04:04:57, José Carlos wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On June 01, 2004 at 03:44:59, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On June 01, 2004 at 03:27:37, José Carlos 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? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I disagree but I think we can agree that it's a matter of taste. IMO, Ruffian >>>>>>>>has a very good selective search. Using your reasoning, we could say "if Ruffian >>>>>>>>beats Crafty we can draw the conclusion that Ruffian has a much better selective >>>>>>>>search, but the result is not fair, it should use only null move. Otherwise, the >>>>>>>>comparison is nonsense". :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yesterday I played a few games on fics against a Crafty clone, I think it was >>>>>>>already game 5 where Crafty managed to repeat a won game. >>>>>>>I was very close to resigning already at move 10, the position was not lost at >>>>>>>that point but I knew the game would be of course. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>More importantly, where is the _fun_ in that, why even play the game? >>>>>>>Who in the world gets a kick out of seeing the same games over and over? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-S. >>>>>> >>>>>> In my opinion, the fun is exactly in figuring out an algorithm to avoid that >>>>>>Crafty clone beating you twice with the same line. Don't you think it is fun to >>>>>>be smarter than a smart opponent? >>>>>> >>>>>> José C. >>>>> >>>>>No I prefer to focus on the algorithms and evaluation. >>>>> >>>>>Book learning is "fake elo", you only cheat yourself into thinking the engine is >>>>>better than it really is. >>>>> >>>>>-S. >>>> >>>> Human elo is also "fake elo" by that reasoning. >>> >>>Yes it is in a way, IMO. >>>It's hard to prevent with humans of course, the solution could be FRC :) >>> >>>> To me, chess is much more than >>>>search and evaluation. To you, it isn't. >>> >>>To me chess is so much more than memorizing book lines. >>>To you this is the main thing. >>> >>>> Ok, that's your opinion and I repect it. >>> >>>Ditto :) >>> >>>-S. >>>> José C. >> >>Ok, it's a matter of taste of course. I'm with Sune on this one. >> >>Note that being a chess engine developer is different than being a chess player. >>As a chess player, if you don't memorize a certain amount of theory, no matter >>how much you dislike doing so, it will cost you some games. >> >>As an engine developer, it's perfectly reasonable to restrict yourself to the >>engine algorithm itself, and let the existing tools handle the opening & >>associated learning issues. It's what software engineers call "modularity" :-) >> >>Vas > > >With similar logic I can say in Formula 1 only the engine is important. >But in my opinion other things: tires, wings, etc. and the driver also >important, the car wins the race not the engine. > >Chessprogram strength depends on : >its evaluation, book, time managment and learning. > > >best regards >Janos True - but even on a good formula 1 team you will have specialists. If I'm the engine specialist, I'll do as little windshield washing, gas pumping, driving, etc, as I can ... Vas
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.