Author: Ingo Bauer
Date: 13:22:37 07/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
Hi >>I think this is quite "nit-picking" (right term? Sorry if too strong!). > >Most of chess is about "nit-picking". :) Yep, sometimes you are right here ... or maybe often! :-) >My point was this. When someone writes a chess engine, he devotes a part of the >time to the search and extensions, a part of the time to the evaluation, a part >of the time to the book selection code, a part of the time to book learning, a >part of the time to position learning, a part of the time to parallel search, >and so forth. We make those choices at the time we do the work. > >Now, when you turn off a feature I wrote, you are saying "that part of your time >was thrown away and is not going to be worthwhile in this match because I am not >going to use that part." What if I did position learning and my opponent chose >not to. The time I spent on position learning you just threw away. The time he >saved by not doing it was spent elsewhere in the engine, and you did not throw >that away. > > >That was my point. An engine is equal to the sum of all its parts. Not the >some of a selected sub-set of its parts... Because both engines can do learning I "dishonoured" both or non. Of course My intension was something complete different! >>1. It is been done for both engines! > >Suppose one doesn't do it very well, or doesn't do it at all? In this case both can do it, but you have a point here! >>What do you think about this proposal: I finish the match with deleted >>learn-files, and we will see what the result is. Then I delete the lernfiles for >>both engines and do the whole match again without deleting lernvalues half way >>through the match. There is only ONE thing YOU have to do. After the first match >>is finished (around thursday evening) YOU have to give a guess about the outcome >>of the second match! If you agree to that I will do another 70h of testing! >That is a better experiment. Learning on. Learning off. See how the results >change if they do. The difference should be attributable to learning. >>We will see if there is any considerable difference (which I doubt with only 40 >>games) to the first match. I think this dispute is about nothing! >> >>Regards >>Ingo >Perhaps it is. Or perhaps not. But in the absense of data, assuming it is >about "nothing" seems a bit superficial. If you want to measure the influence >of learning on the Nunn positions, that makes sense. But to just turn it off >"because" doesn't... I see you dont want to gamble on this. :-) I doubt a big overall difference for this engines and only 40 positions/games with learning on and off. I will repeat the match but I have to think about the order the games have to be played (What if one engine is learning better with white first or vice versa? ;-) ). I believe the result will be in a 10% range of the leading engine in the first match. E.G: if the first match will end 30-10 the repeated match with lerning on will end either 33-7 or 27-13 within that range. The only impossible task now is to define: What is a noteworthy difference? :-) (NO "nit-picking" allowed!) Bye Ingo
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.