Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 01:01:25 06/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 2000 at 03:42:02, blass uri wrote: [snip] >I think that it is a mistake not to try to invent algorithms because I do not >believe that the algorithms are the best. This is how every great advancement in computer chess, and even in programming, is made. >For example I believe that programmers should try to invent selective search >ideas and try to define illogical moves but it seems that nobody tries to do it >and they continue to use the same brute force. The program I am working on implements this idea. >Good humans sometimes can see more than computers in tactics because they use >selective search and they know that moves are illogical without analyzing. > >It is not easy to define selective search rules without pruning logical moves >but the problem is that I believe that most programmers do not even try. I disagree. I think all of them try at some point. There are some big problems, though. The most efficient search for chess is some sort of Alpha-Beta variant. These searches only take the square root of a brute force search. But this technique fundamentally lacks the information needed for pruning. To adapt this basic concept into something that does provide the information is very difficult. >The way to go should be to define some rules and check for the reason that they >fail and change the rules again and again until they do not fail. I don't think we will know the way until it is proven. Until that time, all methods to solve the problem are only theoretical. Your iterative method could be grouped in with algorithms like simulated annealing and gradient maximization. But nobody knows if this is a good approach or not.
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.