Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:52:44 05/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 03, 2001 at 06:53:26, Graham Laight wrote: > > >There are 2 glaringly obvious points to be made in reply here: > >1. If the weights of the evaluation components are wrong (or if, as seems more >likely, the program doesn't modify the values of the weightings according to the >type of position as well as a human), this still represents a knowledge deficit > >2. The research discussed in "Chess Skills In Man And Machine" indicated that a >human GM has expert knowledge on about 50,000 positional patterns. Crafty (and, >I'm sure, any other program) has nothing like that number of evaluation >components (clearly 1 evaluation component <> 1 positional pattern, but there's >probably a correlation) This is probably a bit of "apples and oranges". IE humans recognize a "fork" by pattern. A program recognizes it with a 3 ply search. Ditto for overloaded pieces and a host of other things. Some things have been relegated to the search to handle, others have to be done within the eval. I certainly agree that the computers are _way_ behind humans in total knowledge. But the computers are ahead in some types of tactics (they are behind in some of course). > > >I would reconcile the contradiction by reminding you that I'm not suggesting the >use of a single technique, but rather a combination of techniques. If you look at traditional data mining applications, you generally find that the humans know what they are looking for. IE one project here was to look at treatment in the ER for bacterial infections and outcomes. This might have (years ago) uncovered the fact that young kids, asprin, and flu often lead to a serious interaction. But chess seems different. > >In my own work with AI problems (not chess related unfortunately), I've found >that some problems cannot be solved easily by using a single technique, but that >by combining a combination of techniques, they can be resolved surprisingly >well. > >For example - maybe an NN could be trained to guide the search for significant >patterns in chess positions (and self improve on the job when it starts the real >work). > >It is an unfortunate aspect of chess that other techniques have worked >sufficiently well to have prevented interest in the real intelligence - the >evaluation of positions - from becoming the major focus. > >-g I wouldn't say that at all. if you look at my evaluation code you will probably conclude that "knowledge" is considered important in many places... Both general-purpose knowledge _and_ special-case knowledge. I can't speak for everybody, but _my_ program has gotten "smarter" over the years. For a reason...
This page took 0.05 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.