Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 07:46:15 11/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2000 at 09:08:24, Bob Durrett wrote: >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 must have been in a grouchy mood. Sorry. >> >>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.