Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 14:39:46 08/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 04, 2002 at 17:00:29, Jay Scott wrote: >On August 04, 2002 at 13:26:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >automatic tuning with temporal differences: >>it's a rude and primitif algorithm which can be considered lucky if the plus >>and minus sign are already guessed right. > >Gerry Tesauro might have something to say about that. :-) > >manual tuning: >>The pro's are not far off perfect tuning nowadays. Of course the parameters >>can get improved, but definitely not their tuning. > > You're making strong claims, but I don't see any reasoning to back them up. Can >you prove it, or are you blowing smoke? If i throw a few important values of diep in the autotuner i get weird values back. No one ever reported success. The only program which is so called a success i have seen with my own eyes on icc. in fact i've played against it with DIEP hundreds of games. I've in total seen about 500 games or so of the thing called knightcap. It wasn't true simply. tuning a bunch of parameters at a time isn't working. It's hard proof. a program that's outsearching opponents by 1 to 2 ply was getting smoked completely. a few years ago 2 ply was a lot. nowadays it says less obviously when you get above 10 ply. So you are having the move. Show me that it works! Get crafty source code. modify the tuning to crafty. There you go. Perhaps a week of work at most. I only see a lot of people chat about technical terms. 'back propagation'. Hehe. Lucky i forgot all those things. I know what it did for me and i know what it did for others. And i know it wasn't good. And it's very easy to realize why. It has no domain dependant knowledge, despite that patterns it is supposed to tune ARE domain dependant written. In short that's a contradiction which no tuner can make up for! Then we didn't hit the subject of granularity, making a method to draw the right conclusions out of a result and another zillion of things which are not able to do either :) The best example is book learning. Despite years of work the only thing book learning can do for you is repeat won lines and avoid lost lines. Smarter than that you can't get it! Have you ever thought of that, how much *effort* has been put in learning in chess the last years, and how little good results it has brought? Best regards, Vincent
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.