Author: Ilya P. Kozachenko
Date: 14:08:10 08/26/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 1998 at 16:07:58, Alessio Iacovoni wrote: >>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.. Are you a joker or smth else ? I posted such idea a week ago... and it was quite discussed read about this, please
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.