Author: Dan Honeycutt
Date: 13:24:19 06/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 02, 2004 at 14:59:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 02, 2004 at 14:08:44, Dan Honeycutt wrote: > >>On June 02, 2004 at 12:23:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On June 02, 2004 at 06:48:03, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >>> >>[snip] >> >>>>frosting on the cake. >>>> >>>>For an amateur engine though, it's just a distraction. We have enough of those >>>>as it is. The various zero-cost solutions are totally sufficient. >>> >>> >>>What is a "zero cost solution" to the book problem? I've been working on a >>>chess program since 1968. I have _never_ found a "zero cost solution" to the >>>book problem. My current effort is the closest there can be, because once I >>>wrote the code (which did not take months of effort by the way) it began to >>>manage its own book, freeing me from that responsibility. Net gain in >>>productivity was very large. If you don't learn, you either hand-tune or get >>>killed. The former is a huge time drain, the latter is unpleasant. :) >>> >>>I have published a paper in the JICCA explaining _exactly_ how I did learning. >>>So you don't have to start from scratch, which I did. And even from scratch it >>>was hardly a huge effort. The complete learning code in crafty, book and >>>position, importing, exporting, everything is 1200 lines of C with plenty of >>>comments. It isn't _that_ hard to do... >>> >>>I'm sure that if I could do it, anyone could do it... >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Just my 2 cents of course ... >>>> >>>>Vas >> >>I think Vas was talking to me, not you. A (near) zero-cost solution is to get a >>collection of high quality games, grind those into a book and let the engine >>play move so-and-so the same percent of the time as played in the games >>collection. Your engine prefers 1 d4 over 1 e4. Mine has too little experience >>to know what it prefers. >> >>Dan H. > > >trust me, that will _not_ work. All of us using automatically-generated books >have tried that, and found it _severely_ wanting. What happens when move X is >played in thousands of games, until someone busts the line with new analysis. >You lose that game every time you play it. That's a killer. For Crafty, playing in basement tournaments and around the internet, hundreds of games a day - yes. For me, playing maybe a dozen tournament games a day, it's an extra loss or two a week. > >Learning solves it cleanly. The better your initial book, the better your >program will perform, but learning _still_ cleans up all the things that the >book screws up for one reason or another. I don't disagree. My book is popularity based but it's structured so I can alter weights - by learning, hand tuning or whatever. It's just that I have other things I feel need work worse. One day I'll get around to worrying about my bad book lines. Dan H.
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.