Author: Andrei Fortuna
Date: 13:52:34 09/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2004 at 15:41:42, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >On September 03, 2004 at 05:08:01, Andrei Fortuna wrote: > >>This makes me think how funny would be if two engines play, engine A would have >>all kinds of those extensions in case of check etc, engine B would have >>implemented a good eval function (with many terms regarding positional play) and >>in the match engine B leads engine A towards the positions where engine A >>discovers those mate attacks and so forth ahead of engine B, but he is on the >>losing side due to B's positional play. > >I think this kind of self-play event and auto-tuning and genetic algorithms >in general are under-estimated by the computer chess programmers. Just >because good results haven't been generated and there is no easy "elixer" >doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying it. > >Think of the time-savings. Heck, your auto-tune doesn't have to produce >Bob Hyatt hand-crafted Crafty evaluation coefficients for terms you have >to find and prove first -- but even if you don't produce something other >than what you are doing now but saving a lot of time, then you have profited >more. Hi Stuart, Wasn't talking about auto-tuning, just was thinking that if someone invests in evaluation function versus someone who invests in various extensions - the former wins the game. Of course in reality programmers usually take care of both areas ... Andrei
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.