Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:11:16 06/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
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. I'm trying to steer all the tangents back "on topic". My original statement, once again, was "it is ridiculous to turn off learning in a match or tournament." If you are developing an engine, and want to test, turning off learning is normal. I do it all the time so one test run won't bias the next through position learning or book learning. But that is _not_ what was being done at the start of this thread. It was just "another basement tournament" and why disabling learning was thought to be a good idea there is beyond me... > >Note that being a chess engine developer is different than being a chess player. Correct. back to the beginning of the thread... we were _not_ talking about "developers"... >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
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.