Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 12:24:50 08/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 04, 2002 at 14:46:18, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 04, 2002 at 14:06:55, Sune Fischer wrote: > >will, believe, think, consider. > >Please proof it. chess is very simple compared to other >applications where automatic tuning is supposed to work >in the future. > >So far i have not seen a single decent program that >can do better with automatic tuning than without. Well, maybe you have, do you know how the pros are tuned? How can it be, that the pros have such a good evaluator, while you being an FM(!), can't make something better? >there is a shitload of freeware programs and volunteers to rewrite >them to enable automatic tuning. Please >pick a strong program and tune it. I would advice crafty. >A small parameter set. Even big advantage for the tuners, >but already a good program to start with. It is a non-trivial exercise to do, and I don't know every character of Crafty's code. Besides I would rather spend time on implementing this in my own program and get an edge :) I believe I can make it work, maybe even improve on it. It isn't real important to me whether you believe it works or not, I think you should follow your ideas and I will follow mine, actually I prefer if you forget all about TDLeaf as soon as possible :) >Finding the best values as a human isn't trivial. It sure isn't >for programs. But humans use domain knowledge your tuner doesn't. KnightCap was too interesting a project not to follow up on, I'm very surprized it hasn't been done already. To see people write that it doesn't work when a) KnightCap proved it _did_ work, and 2) they have not even attempted it themselfs, is very funny to me. -S.
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.