Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:17:06 08/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 02, 2002 at 12:45:39, Sune Fischer wrote: >On August 02, 2002 at 12:11:48, Rudolf Huber wrote: >> >>Any respectable result (>=25%) of TDLeaf would be a big surprise >>to me. In my experience, automatic learning methods quickly learn the >>simple things but have a hard time with the finer aspects of chess. >> >>So for me it is not really necessary to use a common search engine >>as a base to prove the point that the TDLeaf method has potential. > >The problem is, that if you take a new engine that isn't very optimized to begin >with, you are not proving it can be done _better_ than hand tuning. >I think we can agree TDLeaf is better than nothing as the KnightCap project >showed, but would it work well enough to also improve on Crafty? > >>And one should also note that hand tuning will profit from public >>source code which gives it a big advantage. > >Hand tuning has it's limits. You can't adjust every weight to 1/100th pawn >accuracy, there are thusands of weights with non-linear relations. > >Given the computerpower, I think it would be possible to do it better than a >human tuning. > >For instance, do you have any idea what the right material values are? >Some use 1, 3, 3, 5.5, 9 and others 0.8, 3, 3.3, 6, 11 or what ever. >I think the *real* values are impossible to guess, it's probably something like: >1.08, 3.12, 3.35, 5,87, 10.64 or in other words - impossible to find without >machine tuning. > >-S. I have 32 values for every piece and not one value. (64 become 32 because of symmetry). I also suspect that the best values may be dependent on the time control of the game. 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.