Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 16:37:52 11/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 16, 2000 at 17:44:00, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>On November 16, 2000 at 15:36:46, Bob Durrett wrote:
>
>>On November 16, 2000 at 13:35:17, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>Why is evaluation more intelligent than search? If you have a program with a
>>>very simple search, that spends a large percentage of its time in evaluation,
>>>and you make the search more clever, so that a higher percentage of the time is
>>>spent in search, did the program become dumber?
>>
>>"make the search more clever" sounds like a great idea! In future programs [new
>>paradigm? (sp=?), one might consider making the search considerably more
>>"clever."
>>
>>It would be interesting to see ideas on how that might be done.
>>
>>My first thought would be to find a way to incorporate "chess planning"
>>knowledge into the search strategy so as to favor evaluation of lines which are
>>consistent with appropriate chess plans [which, in turn, are based on earlier
>>position evaluations made to determine what the appropriate (or feasible) plans
>>are for each side.]
>
>An obvious idea is to make a program understand that it is being pressured. You
>can do this by counting legal replies. If you have very few, you may be being
>pressured.
>
>Another way to make a program understand that it is being pressured is to cause
>it to realize that it has only one move that keeps the score above alpha.
>
>Another thing to do is to make the search realize that the opponent has no
>threats in a position.
>
>All of this has been done.
>
>>>And what about programs that do incremental evaluation? A good incremental
>>>evaluation should produce the same results as the same evaluation carried out at
>>>the tips, and it should do it more quickly. Is this program dumber?
>>
>>To elaborate on this very interesting idea: Why should a position be evaluated
>>"from scratch" each time a new position is reached? That's not the way I do it
>>when I play chess. In my own serious chess games, information I found out in
>>earlier positions typically do influence my evaluation of the current position.
>>Perhaps this is true also for all chessplayers. Why not also for the computer
>>program?
>>
>>>
>>>I think that one of the greatest wastes of time is trying to assign categories
>>>to these programs.
>>
>>But . . . people keep asking "is this a knowledge based or a bean counter
>>program {also called "brute force")? What shall we do with those people?
>>
>>Inherent in their questions about terminology seems to be the more important
>>question: "Which approach should I take in the design of my new chess-playing
>>program?" "Which approach offers more promise?"
>
>Another aspect of the question is that it gives you an indication of what
>program you should buy.
>
>People don't want to simply get whacked by their programs, they want to get
>whacked well. They want to feel like they've been whacked by a human, so they
>can practice against the computer and feel like they are practicing against a
>strong human. The idea being, of course, that eventually they can beat strong
>humans, which will make them strong humans, too. And that is their overall
>goal.
>
>The concern is to avoid moves that look computery, and it's been considered by
>many that a brainless eval results in computery looking moves.
>
>Some people have also made claims that a smarter program will perform better
>given a hardware increase.
>
>And so on, it goes on forever, although people rarely talk about subjective
>stuff like contrasting styles or the "educational" strength of chess programs.
>All you hear about are match results and computer vs computer ratings and other
>silliness. There are lots of specific topics that can be discussed for instance
>how easy it is to king-attack various programs, or which programs will trade
>into a lost K+P ending rather than keeping the last pair of rooks on, or the
>benefits of various pawn structures, but none of this gets discussed.
>
>I think silliness is fine, but we've had years of it here, there are a lot of
>people spending a lot of time spinning their wheels.
>
>bruce
For beginners have you looked at my latest anelyze?
the other thing where you where speaking about where to my point of vieuw hard
to realise (practicing with the creating personeletys i found out that even
selectivety can be verry important a litle bit more or less can change the
intire personelety.
But if it is posible to give programs a higher knowledge about pawn structures
What the benifits are and what the drawbacks are from diferent pawnformation I
am sure that programs all the sudden indeed become of SUPERSUPERGM strenght
As a matter a fact about all the anelyzes I ever made the only thing I had to do
is looking at the pawn formation
remember the early stage from computer chess? computer programs made most of the
times pieces to push around where GM's would have played pawns for the same
reasons
this already is improved a lot but still far from perfect
actualy a way to look at positions in human terms could be implented in
chessprograms but what about the knowledge of strong fields I have never seen a
program made a pawn sacrefice (or force the opponenet to weaken it's pawn chain
to get a strong square to get a strong square and if they did get a strong field
they never realy know what to do with it
Herman Grooten did write in his book stratigical plans that you use a strong
field to turn your pieces for instance first the bischop then the knight then
the queen and most of the time you will find a combination,
To my point of Vieuw is Junior who already has a feeling on how to guard it's
pieces on a square and also has a certain feeling of strong fields for it's
knights closer then most programs but indeed also the usage of pawns is a
weaknes from Junior ( I do mean here that sometimes it doesn't see that playing
pawns up to suport pieces is usefull (most in the time this also helps in the
endgame also
Besides Junior also with some help Rebel 10 and know Gambit tiger also have the
knowldege of these strong squares
But how manny of my anelyzes started with pushing pawns up to later put a knight
behind these pieces with good results?
But I think if computer find out that the game I posted today indeed do give
black a lot of counter play then we are on right turn
Now they only see that White wins a pawn and there for e5 won't apear on the
board (only after 2 till 3 plys they find out that black get counter play.
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.