Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:41:12 05/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 2000 at 19:15:59, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On May 22, 2000 at 09:44:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Again I agree. But I believe our definitions of "enough" are way different. >>IE I know a person that tried to have crafty solve "wild 7". This is a king >>and three pawns vs king and three pawns ending with a well-known way to force >>a win by white. White has pawns at a2/b2/c2, black has pawns at f7/g7/h7. >>White's king is at d1. Black's king is at e8. White to play and win. He >>played thousands of games. learning by "position" as crafty does it, is hurt >>by something known as "a local maxima" which stifles learning beyond that >>point. This position is way easier to solve than the DB position, yet it seems >>impervious to learning approaches. Ande search. Yet it is so easy for a human, >>once he understands the idea. (Hint: it is all about zugzwang). > >The "wild 7" position is not impervious to search, given appropriate evaluation >terms. Murray Cambell's Ph.D. thesis documents his program solving a similar, >if not identical, position, and many other, even more difficult king and pawn >endings. > >Dave I remember Murray's thesis on Chunking. However this is a _very_ fine line for a position. One mistake by white turns it into a draw. A more serious mistake or two small mistakes and black wins. It is certainly possible to develop an eval to solve it. But it would be _very_ special-purpose. And it would need a lot of search to back it up. The DB position is orders of magnitude harder. And trying to self-play to 'learn' the positions is a _large_ undertaking for a program...
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.