Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 14:30:18 09/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 03, 2004 at 16:52:34, Andrei Fortuna wrote: >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 Yes -- I understand you weren't -- but there is a big savings if you do it right. For me, it is worth investigating as I don't want to spend the rest of my life tuning evaluation functions.
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.