Author: James Swafford
Date: 19:12:27 08/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
You're serious? :) I just got home from Edmonton. Let me think on this... Six months is definitely not doable. I graduate in December, and I've gotta hella course load this Fall. But I might consider a 12 month wager. If you're serious, let me know, and then let me think on it for a day or two. I don't know if I want to take your money yet. (Are you talking about "Amateur" ?) And yeah, I think open source is fine. -- James BTW... how big is your family? :)) On July 31, 2002 at 23:38:56, Will Singleton wrote: >On July 31, 2002 at 21:33:29, James Swafford wrote: > >>On July 31, 2002 at 17:49:05, Jay Scott wrote: >> >>>On July 30, 2002 at 22:43:36, James Swafford wrote: >>> >>>>why isn't >>>>everyone doing it?? >>> >>>In my view, it's because top chess programmers are amazingly conservative. Or to >>>look at it more positively, they have a lot of time invested in and knowledge >>>gained about their traditional manual methods, and they do not believe in making >>>big changes. It's hard to argue with success! >>> >>>Over the years I've posted a bunch of machine learning suggestions (few of them >>>original to me) to rec.games.chess.computer and to this forum. Maybe it's my >>>writing style or something, but in every single case the general first reaction >>>was to ignore or dismiss the idea. That happened even when I pushed opening book >>>learning, which was not used in chess programs at the time but has become common >>>since. Arthur Samuels' classic checkers program already used a similar kind of >>>rote learning, so nobody should call it a radical new idea, but despite >>>seemingly obvious advantages it somehow took decades to show up in chess >>>programs. >>> >>>Another problem is that many of the people who've played around with learning >>>algorithms were only playing around. It takes serious knowledge to create a good >>>learning program, and different serious knowledge to create a good playing >>>program, and you have to have both to get really impressive results. Nobody's >>>done it yet. >>> >>>My advice for those who have great new ideas: Implement them yourself and become >>>a smashing success. *That's* convincing. The only problem is that to become a >>>smashing success, you'll also have to implement a lot of great old ideas. >> >>I agree with you. I have studied TD-Leaf for a while, and I am definitely >>going to pursue creating a strong TD chess player. >> >>One of my biggest concerns was the time to train a complex evaluator. >>I spoke with Rich Sutton about this today, and he convinced me that it's >>doable. >> >>-- >>James > >James, > >From my work with checkers, chess and td algorithms, I would have to disagree. >I would be thrilled to be proven wrong, but there's better ways to do chess than >td learning. At least for the present. I suspect it will be a interesting >experiment, though. > >I'll offer a proposition. I'm working on a new program based on standard, >well-known techniques. I assume from your comments that you are working on a TD >chess player. Six months from now, let's have a match, open source code. Loser >pays for winner's trip (incl family, round-trip) to loser's home city for dinner >and drinks. > >How about it? > >Will
This page took 0.01 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.