Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 23:03:45 06/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 23, 2000 at 01:13:09, Will Singleton wrote: >On June 22, 2000 at 21:35:02, Graham Laight wrote: > >>When we've discussed NNs in the past, as far as I remember (and excuse me if >>I've missed some threads where this has already been discussed), we've always >>discussed them in terms of creating one giant, monolithic NN. >> >>In a flash of inspiration last night, it suddenly occured to me that what you >>actually need is one NN for each type of "positional factor" you are trying to >>recognise. >> >>For example, you could build a NN of an appropriate size, and train it to look >>out for cases where a "smothered mate" was likely to become possible - using a >>set of positions where it either is, or isn't likely. Then, for each node that >>is to be evaluated in a game, you can pass that position to this NN, and come up >>with an assessment of whether this particular positional weakness (or strength!) >>exists. >> >>When you have got 50,000 such NNs working, then "vous voila!" - you have your >>player with grandmaster level skill. > >>I think that this would be a good use for multiple processor (or multiple >>computer) systems. And, in reality, wouldn't it be a good model for how the >>human brain works? >> >>In summary, instead of thinking about one big NN, think about having lots of >>little NNs to play chess with. >> >>-g > >I think your idea has a lot of merit, but not sure this is a new idea. I also >think it could take years to design a system to coordinate a set of eval >functions which could choose the proper neural weight set (or sets). Would be a >process of tuning the training function, then playing games to judge the result, >then modifying the training function and generating new weights. > >It might be very difficult to get this to work. NN's seem to work best where a >huge set of games can be used to figure out the training function params, and >the resulting weights. Lots of trial and error. Chess doesn't lend itself well >to such training. > >Will I think there is little substance to this idea, and furthermore I expect that there is little truth to the notion that this has anything to do with human thought. A series of in-parallel recognizers. Fine. But there is absolutely nothing about how to relate them, and only one pattern out of 50,000 proposed patterns is enumerated. We have the title for yet another novel, but I would like to see the first chapter, or at least the first paragraph, before I consider giving Graham a cash advance. bruce
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.