Author: Alessio Iacovoni
Date: 00:24:40 08/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 27, 1998 at 20:01:05, Serge Desmarais wrote: >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.. > > > But if you have several engines in Fritz 5, e.g. Fritz 5.x, HIARCS 6.0 and >the CD-ROM engine, it uses Fritz for tactical calculations, HIARCS for >positionnal play and the CD-ROM tablebase for endings when it applies. Also, >Fritz engine (the main one for tactics) relies on speed and depth for its >strenght. So HOW MUCH would the filtering would cost on speed/depth to the >program. Basically, as I know, you also have 2 different types of chess programs > : the fast searchers (like Fritz, Ferret, Crafty) and the "knowledge programs" >like MChessPro, HIARCS. The second one have extensive positionnal knowledge that >slows them down and cost them in depth, but the said knowledge compensates. > > Now, your idea is a verbal one. How would you code that "positionnal >knowledge"? WHAT would you encode and how? Not easy to answer. For example the >Bishop's pair. Sometimes it is good, sometimes not or would not make a >difference. HOW would you make the program recognize the difference? On what >criterias? That is the major problem with verbal ideas. You have to put them in >numbers, with variables and probabilities for the program to use it. > >Serge Desmarais Serge i'm not a programmer.. but i've studied some logic (philosophy) and i know something about sound reasoning... so.. it appears to me that a strategy that tries to develop "specialization" is going to be more efficient and successful than one using only one single approach. Now... tactical engines have gone very far.. they are capable of beating strong players, very strong players, sometimes internationa masters and grandmasters. The question that arises is "why is it that they cannot always beat a grandmaster"?. The answer: "grandmasters now how to exploit the weaknesses of the program. So.. what does this bring us up to. logical: to the need of a "positional blunder check" engine.... as dynamic as possible i.e. capable of "modifying" its strategy in order to prevent anybpdy from expoliting its weaknesses. So there is the idea.. it's not original i believe because i've just read an article on it on alt.computers.chess that talked about deep blue and "hsu"... but it is the only viable one... If THIS strategy was followed I guess a double processor would be suffcient to beat a grandmaster always. By the way... You now.. I'm Italian.. and italians are wonderfull at coming up with ideas... but then we leave the dirty work of implementing them (and getting the credit for them)to others.... :))))
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.