Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 07:16:01 11/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 13, 2005 at 10:02:29, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 13, 2005 at 09:51:00, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On November 13, 2005 at 05:57:57, Ryan B. wrote: >> >>>I agree again, it does not take long to learn by reading Fruits eval code. If >>>people could read Zappas or Shredders eval functions we would have a better >>>chance of beating them or tuning a program to beat them. >> >>I think this a complete misconception. >> >>If I would just have read Fruit's code, I would have concluded it to be a weak >>program. Looking at the games would quickly show this to be wrong. >> >>You need games, not code. >> >>-- >>GCP > >The fact that you could get wrong conclusions only show that you had some wrong >assumptions. And what would the assumption be based on? Looking at the code. >It does not show that it is impossible to learn from fruit. >You may need games to know if a program is strong but you do not need games in >order to learn from a program after you know that it is strong. We are not talking about learning from a program. We are talking about finding weaknesses. -- GCP
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.