Even Uri Blass understands what you wrote is not correct and he gives a disproof for it, just using a few moves Marcel.Is this again some KGB crap?
Are you understanding what he wrote down?
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
Even Uri Blass understands what you wrote is not correct and he gives a disproof for it, just using a few moves Marcel.Is this again some KGB crap?
In case you didn't know, our main tuning method is documented in here:diep wrote:Your main vehicle of tuning is exactly this - you obviously spit out desinformation here deliberately that it failed for you, as it didn't.zamar wrote:I wrote about one tuning experiment which failed. Of course it's possible that it works, but I got the details wrong... I'm not intentionally encougaring/discouraging anybody.diep wrote:So the guy who parameter tunes himself using positions his own program based upon the evaluation difference of positions,zamar wrote: [snip]
Sorry, but your writing is complete crap and disinformation. You don't seem to understand much about the subject.
he writes about me that i spread 'desinformation and crap'.
Whereas the only out of us 2 who is clearly lying, is you, as you encouraged the Chinese guy to NOT do the same.
Now *that* is hypocrisy.
It's your main form of tuning.
Yes, but you don't seem to have a clue of what I'm talking about.diep wrote:Even Uri Blass understands what you wrote is not correct and he gives a disproof for it, just using a few moves Marcel.Is this again some KGB crap?
Are you understanding what he wrote down?
Initially there was a posting from Marco Costalba claiming Stockfish was getting tuned by playing sets of 1000 games 1 minute all.zamar wrote:In case you didn't know, our main tuning method is documented in here:diep wrote:Your main vehicle of tuning is exactly this - you obviously spit out desinformation here deliberately that it failed for you, as it didn't.zamar wrote:I wrote about one tuning experiment which failed. Of course it's possible that it works, but I got the details wrong... I'm not intentionally encougaring/discouraging anybody.diep wrote:So the guy who parameter tunes himself using positions his own program based upon the evaluation difference of positions,zamar wrote: [snip]
Sorry, but your writing is complete crap and disinformation. You don't seem to understand much about the subject.
he writes about me that i spread 'desinformation and crap'.
Whereas the only out of us 2 who is clearly lying, is you, as you encouraged the Chinese guy to NOT do the same.
Now *that* is hypocrisy.
It's your main form of tuning.
http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/ ... ing+method
I've of course tried various alternatives, but the experiment I told about this thread failed. I've also heard that Komodo team tried something similar and failed too (not 100% sure about this)
Sorry to chime in, just to calrify that it was not tuning. Testing on 1000 games at 1' per game was used to validate a new feature (not auto-tuning a parameter).diep wrote: Initially there was a posting from Marco Costalba claiming Stockfish was getting tuned by playing sets of 1000 games 1 minute all.
The discussion back then WAS about automatic parameter tuning.mcostalba wrote:Sorry to chime in, just to calrify that it was not tuning. Testing on 1000 games at 1' per game was used to validate a new feature (not auto-tuning a parameter).diep wrote: Initially there was a posting from Marco Costalba claiming Stockfish was getting tuned by playing sets of 1000 games 1 minute all.
And it worked ! If you look at SF commit history in github you will see that until about 1-2 years ago many changes were committed after 1K games of testing. Today SF is much more mature and finding an increase with just 1K games is not realistic, but at the time the changes were in the range of 10-15 ELO each and the signal/noise level was high enough that even 1K games validation worked most of the times and, on average, let SF to steadily increase ELO from Glaurung.
You really sound like, you should get some rest...diep wrote: Not only a deadly silience, which is very legal, but a posting claiming it didn't work for you to tune in the manner how some of the top engines get tuned, including your 'own'. It's ok to say nothing if something works for you, but spreading 100% desinformation is just very very sick.