Author: José Carlos
Date: 03:50:20 08/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 05, 2002 at 17:39:46, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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! You should say "Smarter than that _I_ can't get it", if that is the case. But _a lot_ of amateur are smarter than that. Mine is, and it's still far behind others. José C. >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.