Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 09:08:11 06/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 23, 1999 at 11:54:22, Jay Scott wrote: > >On June 22, 1999 at 14:32:26, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On June 22, 1999 at 13:17:35, Jay Scott wrote: >>>You're suggesting the obvious algorithm, almost exactly what I suggested >>>some months ago. >> >>It predates "some months ago" by a long time. I am sure people thought of it at >>least 10 years ago. > >I mean, almost exactly what I suggested to Dann Corbit the last time he >mentioned his unusual updating algorithm. Like I said, it's obvious. >So I'm puzzled that chess programs don't implement it! Ah, now I see what you're getting at. I think Bookup used to use the same "naive" iteration algorithm before Mike implemented the tree-based one that you (and I) are suggesting. Dann: don't iterate! It takes _way_ longer to work, trust me. :) Find the algorithmic complexity bounds if you don't believe me... iteration is far worse. >>Overspecified, but it will work fine. > >Yes, overspecified. The details may be completely different. > >>>A more intensive novelty-search would find all moves within, say, >>>half a pawn of the best move. Just use the "Next Best" feature until >>>you've got 'em all. For the Kasparov effect, repeat the novelty search >>>on the novelties until you have a whole subtree of analysis ready for >>>your next opponent. The new scores float up the tree and may change >>>the best move at the original node--the ideal is to discover that the >>>novelty that seemed at first to be second-best is actually quite strong. >> >>Even the second-best ones are fine. As a rule, you only get one game with them >>before they're not novelties anymore. As long as it gives the opponent >>something to think about and a chance to go wrong, you're ahead. > >In human chess, when a hot novelty comes up at the top level there's a race >to analyze it, to be the first to refute it or to find an improvement. >Kasparov, and before him Fischer, showed that deep home analysis can be >devastating. Computers can run this race too--but so far they don't. Hmm. I am thinking that in certain cases, it may be tough to decide where book preparation ends and book cooking begins, though. I know the focus is to find objectively strong moves, and you were looking at off-line analysis, but if you are autoplaying computer opponents... :/ >Seeing opening book errors in the recent WCCC, some people are suggesting >that computer books should be shallower, because the programs can find >stronger moves on their own. But home analysis, when it's possible, is >better than spending time to find the moves over the board. So I >think offline book learning is an idea whose time is ripe. > >Chess programmers, go for it! > > Jay Dave
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.