Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > Don Dailey wrote: > >> First of all, I am not aware of any published work on this specific >> thing. There may be some, but I'm not aware of it. > > Thanks, this was what I was curious about. > > The rest of your story is rather anecdotal and I won't comment on it. Are you trying to be politely condescending? > > Note that I agree on the starting premise and by extension the result > from the "light" study is the one I most expected. I expected this result too, but there is nothing like seeing it verified to be sure. I'm not sure what you mean by the "starting premise." What is the starting premise?
> I was surprised by the original Mogo-Leela result but the "light" > result seems to show it was a bit of a coincidence. I'm sorry, I don't follow. What is surprising about the original Mogo-Leela result? Is it better or worse than you expected? > >> So in the early days it seemed more productive to make your program >> faster - but now it's more productive to make them smarter. I >> believe that if you ask any computer chess programmer that has been >> doing this for 20 years or more, you would get this same >> understanding. > > I think it depends on how you define "smarter". Is that like "more > intelligent" ? What I mean is that the evaluation function is of better quality - knows more about chess in some sense. In some ways I admit that it's hard to separate the evaluation function from the program. A poor EF can affect other parts of the program such as the quality of the selectivity and even the efficiency of the cutoffs. - Don _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
