Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 06:08:24 11/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2000 at 22:46:58, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On November 20, 2000 at 21:39:17, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>Before launching into the "new idea," I must admit that I have never seen the >>source code for Fritz, Rebel, and any of the other commercial chess programs. >>Maybe this "new" idea is already being implemented, at least in part. >> >>NEW IDEA: >> >>If a program evaluates each new position from scratch, it will take a certain >>amount of processor time, and the software will take up a certain amount of >>space in memory, and the situation will be much the same for each position of a >>chess game. >> >>But what if the same [or equal] evaluation could be done in a fraction of this >>time? How? It is wasteful to throw useful information away, so find a way to >>use it. >> >>The answer may be to use an "evaluation" method which converges on the correct >>evaluation by means of an iterative process. This process need not be >>restricted to evaluation of the current position. >> >>For some, this may require casting off self-imposed boundaries [doing it the way >>"it's done"] and moving into a new paradigm. >> >>If it is noted that consecutive positions are necessarily very similar, then a >>way should be sought to use the information gleaned in one position and to use >>as a starting point for the evaluation of the next position. This may require >>finding a radically new way to do "evaluation." >> >>Similarly, two positions separated by two half-moves in a game are also very >>similar, although typically not as similar as two positions separated by a >>"distance" of one half-move. This suggests that information obtained during the >>"evaluation" of a position might also be useful for positions separated by more >>than one half-move. >> >>One could extend this idea to positions separated by "distances" of many >>half-moves. In fact, some of the information known in advance before the game >>begins [assuming starting from the usual starting position] should have some >>bearing on all of the positions which follow in a game. The greater the >>"distance," the less the usefulness of the information. >> >>This idea could be used "backwards" as well. Since positions in a chess game >>are reasonably similar if separated by some reasonably small distance, then the >>evaluations of positions could also be used to refine prior evaluations of prior >>moves. This suggests some sort of iteration, maybe. >> >>As I understand it, hash tables contain precious little information about each >>position. That would have to change to use this method. In fact, the structure >>of hash tables and the way they are used would have to change. >> >>Information obtained from a position would have to be retained by the program in >>some manner. The use of hash tables is the "current paradigm" way of doing it. >>But the information might also be stored in settings the values of integers used >>in loops, for example. Innovation by programmers not bound by the boundaries of >>current paradigms might be needed here. >> >>It is not suggested that any ordinary beginning programmer could figure out the >>optimal way of doing this. But wouldn't it be worth the pain and agony required >>of an innovative programmer if he/she could work out a practical way of doing >>this? >> >>Underlying message: To produce big improvements in performance of chess-playing >>software, or any other kind of software, for that matter, it may be necessary to >>cast off the shackles of the assumption that "doing it the way it's done" is the >>only way. One should look for new paradigms. This "evaluation" idea is my >>attempt to do just that. >> >>Incidentally, the name "Shannon" could be mentioned. Any scheme which throws >>away, repeatedly, large amounts of information is inferior in the sense that it >>is theoretically better to use most or all of the information available, >>assuming that a practical way to do that is found. >> >> >>Bob D. > >"Your idea" is ancient and is called incremental evaluation of which piece >square tables are a very simple example. > >It is pretty obvious you haven't taken the time to learn some rather basic >things about computer chess programming. Why waste your time (and ours) >reinventing the wheel? I guess you are right, Ricardo. I will crawl back into my shell and close the door. I certainly wouldn't wish to waste anybody else's time. > >I also don't care for the use of the word "paradigm". This word is much overused >and many like me have come to associate it with the inflating the value of an >idea. I wince ever time I see it.
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.