Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:40:28 09/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 04, 2004 at 17:35:43, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >On September 03, 2004 at 18:14:56, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 03, 2004 at 17:30:18, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>I believe that I can earn more from adding new knowledge relative to tuning. >> >>Tuning can be done not automatically based on watching problems that repeat in >>games. >> >>Uri > >If a problem repeats in games and the program loses, then tuning will >try various things to prevent it. > >Look at Slate's "mouse" program and its learning capability. Highly >effective yet simple. No need to even adjust coefficients. Just store >a hash and a move in an avoid file. > >Imagine what tuning could do. > >I believe both Schaeffer and Marsland have very high expectations for >the future of tuning via various methods. > >Stuart The problem is that there are things that you simply need to add new knowledge if you want to fix them. It is not about changing parameters and I do not see how it can be done automatically. Uri
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.