Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 12:12:34 09/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
>Posted by Enrique Irazoqui on September 19, 1999 at 14:30:25: >>The problem (book-learning alike) is that it hides the real strength of a >>chess engine. These days it's not about the engine but more about >>the extra elo you can gain by smart (and aggressive) book-learning >>and opponent recognition will only make it worse. It operates hidden >>hardly to see (notice) for the end-user unless you take a very deep >>look in the system. > >It is like with learners. Once upon a time, it gave advantage to some >programs. Not now. Programs either they have a learner or they escape >with broad books. You must be kidding. Book-learning is dominant. Have a look at the Rebel Century games on my pages. You will notice the match Rebel Century - Fritz 5.32. Fritz 5.32 was caught 14-15 times on 1.b3 As a result Fritz lost 14-15 times and therefore lost the match. Remove the doubles and Fritz would have won this match. It's a perfect example how silly these matches are for so called accurate testing. It is meaningless and misleading. >Opponent recognition is, as far as I can tell, something no program has. >But if they all develop it, and this would be a genuine advance in intelligence, the >engine will still have the last word. We are saying the same as 2 years ago >about learners. See above. The current status of book-learning is far from being perfect. If you want to top on all comp-comp events it still makes sense to put a lot of energy in book-learning. I wonder if that is the goal of chess programming. You can not imagine what you can do with opponent recognition. In the end the best "book-learner" + "opponent recognizer" software will top on all comp-comp lists and can completely fail in manual games. What has this to do with playing strength? You are testing software that has nothing to do with the capabilities of the chess engine. >>>>This whole auto232 thing is so fragile that I can imagine people >>>>don't want to touch it any longer. >>> >>>It has always been fragile, but more reliable than the very few manual games >>>that can be played. Proof: you and I play thousands of automatic games, and >>>seldom any manual ones. Why is that? :) >> >>It depends on the intention you are playing these thousands of games. For >>me that is to improve Rebel as it gives me a lot of useful data. > > >It is useful as the only way to get enough comp-comp games to make accurate >quantifiable comparisons, in spite of the few problems here and there. Accurate? First step: play 300-400 60/60 games using all learned data of previous matches. Second step: remove all learning. Third step: play 300- 400 games again. Good chance you see a 100 elo difference as I have seen. >Although I learn much more from one game I play manually than from 10 >autoplayed games, but this is another question. Agreed :) Ed >Enrique
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.