Author: Uri Blass
Date: 23:09:34 09/04/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 04, 2004 at 23:54:50, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >On September 04, 2004 at 18:40:28, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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 > >Absolutely concur that nothing, save neural, could discover new associations. > >But once you have identified a term in a linear or non-linear context, then >the weight for it -- THAT is tunable. > >Certainly parameters cannot not easily be added from nowhere automatically. >We programmers are needed for that. > >However, they can be dropped by auto-tuning with the evaluation function >eventually either zeroing them out or in such a way after the auto-tuning >to rebalance everything in a way that would zero out any terms that could >be zeroed out, thus dropping non-essential knowledge. > >It is at least as complicated to setup something solid and general. > >Have you read Baxter et al and their KnightCap -- please explain that >success story. > >From 1600 to 2500 with one blip on an opening book and probably some >more blips on repeat wins by players playing the same moves over and >over is an outstanding success story. > >Do I have it wrong??? Has anyone repeated their success????? > >Stuart I do not think that knightcap is a success story. Movei is clearly better than Knightcap with no automatic tuning. 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.