Author: James Swafford
Date: 13:07:14 06/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 02, 2004 at 16:03:10, James Swafford wrote: >On June 02, 2004 at 10:06:22, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On May 29, 2004 at 16:13:24, James Swafford wrote: >> >>>On May 29, 2004 at 14:15:37, Frank Phillips wrote: >>> >>>>On May 29, 2004 at 12:53:54, James Swafford wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 29, 2004 at 11:53:29, Frank Phillips wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 29, 2004 at 11:44:58, James Swafford wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On May 29, 2004 at 11:35:07, Frank Phillips wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On May 29, 2004 at 04:00:31, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I don't think so. The program still has weaknesses that a bit of >>>>>>>>>extra hardware will not overcome. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>GCP >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>What are these weaknesses? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Bob may even be able to fix them before the event. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>He was talking about his program, not Crafty. >>>>>> >>>>>>Thanks. I misread the post. >>>>>> >>>>>>But I am still interested in the weaknesses being referred to by GCP, which are >>>>>>resistant to faster hardware. I have so many myself. If only I knew what they >>>>>>were :-) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>As in, "I can't seem to mate Shredder, even with faster hardware!" ?? :) >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>James >>>> >>>> >>>>I guess the answer is yes, although I have never had better hardware - and am >>>>not SMP, so probably never will. >>>> >>>>See you tonight at ICC author's only tournament ? :-) >>> >>>NOt as a competitor-- my thing is nowhere near strong enough >>>to compete yet. I'm hoping to be able to compete in the next >>>CCT, though. >> >>Are you still doing the learning stuff? > >I've been working with TDLeaf quite a bit. At some point I'll >post something with some meat to it, but to sum it up, I'm >not nearly as optimistic about it as I once was. > >In my experience, TDLeaf can train the material weights, and it >can even produce an evaluation vector that's superior to a >'material only' vector. I am not convinced it's useful for >training a complex vector, nor am I convinced it does a better >job than hand tuning. For that matter, I am not even >convinced it converges to the optimal vector! > >Caveat: it's possible (though I think it's unlikely) that >my implementation is flawed. My engine will become open source >at some point (maybe after the next CCT), so you can judge >for yourself then. > >Will Singleton and I had a bet on this... I conceited defeat Gah! I "conceded" defeat. >the other day. THe original bet was for the loser to fly >the winner and spouse across country for drinks. :) I'm >pretty sure Will's decided he'll forego that if I show up >at a tourney, but that's his call. > >I'm still very interested in learning algorithms, but I'll >be focusing on improving my evaluation for a while. > >Again- I will post some data at some point. > >-- >James
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.