Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:58:01 06/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 02, 2004 at 16:07:14, James Swafford wrote: >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. I am doing a computer guided optimization for Beowulf. It takes ~12,000 positions from super-GM games and SSDF games among the top computers where all the participants chose the same move (no other moves chosen for that position). For each of about 100 parameters, I vary the value from too small up to too large (e.g. a knight might go from 200 centipawns to 450). At some optimal point, the largest number of positions will be chosen. I fit a parabola throught the data ans solve for the maxima (if any). Often, the variance of the parameter has no effect on the solution scores (for instance, I might get 5500 solutions no matter what the parameter is, or the number of solutions may vary randomly). So I also solve for the minima of the time curve. As an example, a depth 4 search using NULL MOVE will probably solve a few LESS positions than not using NULL MOVE, but it will take 1/3 of the time at some optimal prune level. I have had lots of bugs in my curve analysis, but I am slowly working it out. Before, I solved for a smaller subset of tactical positions which made it great at solving those tactical positions but lousy at playing. I am hoping for a better result this time (especially since some of my result calculations were backwards, making the fits enormously unstable).
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.