Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 15:23:13 06/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 29, 2000 at 16:23:20, Graham Laight wrote: >On June 28, 2000 at 16:16:30, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On June 28, 2000 at 13:58:28, Graham Laight wrote: >> >>>I assume that what you're talking about is a database of piece patterns that can >>>occur in a chess game, together with some indication of what these patterns >>>mean. >>> >>>Unfortunately, when we try to suggest that a NN is the best AI instrument for >>>abstract pattern recognition, all we seem to hear is that NNs are quite >>>incapable of being trained to recognise chess patterns - as if the mechanism of >>>the human brain is some sort of magic... >> >>It's easy to write an algorithm that can tell the difference between an X and an >>O. >> >>It's harder to write one that tell the difference between the a bunch of good >>guitar players, and tell you why one of them is the best, and why one solo was >>his best solo. > >The whole idea of using tools like NNs, genetic algorithms and fuzzy logic is >that they CAN be used to attack problems that are difficult to write algorithms >for. > >If a need to rate guitar music arose, which tool would you reach for - a NN >package, or a C++ compiler? > >>I suspect that chess is more like the latter problem than the former. > >Exactly. You seem to be debating FOR the proposal! > >>Humans see patterns in positions, but they are also very good at weighting the >>values of these patterns in specific cases, and they back this impressional >>knowledge up with good calculating ability. > >Yes - very true! And if we want the computer to do the same, we're going to >have to give it some of what a human has. > >>I encourage other approaches, of course. If they can be made to work, it would >>be significant in many ways. It would be nice if it could actually happen >>before the centennary of the work of Turing and Shannon though. >> >>Personally, if I had to pick a multi-generational problem to work on, it would >>be colonization of a nearby star system, rather than a "pure" AI approach to >>computer chess. > >I suspect that if the NN approach to doing chess (in my view, an NN to recognise >the existence of each type of pattern in the presented position, and one big I don't understand what you mean by "pattern." If you mean something that humans can't scientifically articulate, like "king attack," then a NN might be a good idea. (...although a NN that can identify king attacks might as well just play chess by itself...) But there are a tremendous number of patterns which can be recognized with 100% accuracy with simple procedural logic (e.g., "doubled pawns"). Using a NN to detect doubled pawns would be extremely stupid. -Tom
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.