Author: Alessio Iacovoni
Date: 13:07:58 08/26/98
Go up one level in this thread
>Why don't you just explain your idea here? If it survives the critiques, you >will have gained something of more value than the small sum of money you are >seeking, and if your idea has weaknesses, you would learn about them. Ok. Here it is... Now, first some facts: 1. When playing against a chessmachine the "human" player adopts certain strategies that it feels will make the "machine" loose... For example: (a) let it go out of it's opening book in the very first stage of the fight (as Kasparov did at least in one game aginst deep blue if i dont remember wrong). (b) play closed games (c) exchange as many pieces as possible (d) play "calm" and "positional" (e) attempt an attack on the computer's castled king with a piece sacrifice (strange but many programs will fall in for it!!) - opening lines and exposing his majesty. (f) make positional sacrifices (i.e. "real" ones) So basically it seems that the way the program is beaten is through positional knowledge and a clever use of sacrifices etc etc.. i.e. intelligence.. But you know all of this.. the solution: have 2 engines play the same game: a tactically strong one i.e. Fritz and a positionally "knowledge based one" The tactical engine would be in control all of the time, but all of the moves would be filted by the "positional one" in such a way as to avoid those "bluders" which are typical of programs. The filtering could be weighted in suych a way as to ovveride the positional engine filtering if a very strong tactical combination is found and viceversa. etc etc..
This page took 0.01 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.