Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 19:50:55 05/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 24, 2001 at 21:44:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On May 24, 2001 at 20:47:31, Slater Wold wrote: > >>On May 24, 2001 at 20:16:23, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >> >>>My observations are that chess playing programs seem to lack the ability to plan >>>a strategy during the game. Sure they can execute combinations within in their >>>visible horizon. But would it be possible to incorporate on an executive level >>>decision making process that would guide the chess engine in the direction of a >>>particuliar goal/strategy such as queening a pawn or a King side attack, that is >>>be beyond the horizon search. >>>Has this been incorportated in any of the current programs? Too me, it does not >>>appear so. >>> >>>I have seen too many games where programs have no clue as to how to proceed, so >>>they just move a rook back and forth etc that indicates they are unable to come >>>up with a plan and/or have played thus far without a plan only to search for >>>what gives it (the Program) a best number. >>> >>>Wayne >> >>If I am not wrong, Crafty has been doing this, or something very similiar for a >>long time. >> >> >>Slate > > >Not like he means. IE Crafty often appears to have a plan... exploiting an >open file, a weak square or pawn, or a weak kingside, or a pawn majority, or >whatever. But it really doesn't quite play like I do for example. IE "there >is a weak square, if I can plant my knight there, then I can ...." A computer >plays using serendipity.. it stumbles into a position and says "I like this" >rather than starting from "how can I get there from here?" > >I don't particularly think either way is better than the other, when you look >at the results computers are producing. Results that are getting in competition... not in analysis, where a bit of real planning would be a breakthrough. You say that a computer stumbles into a position and say "I like this". Sometimes a computer reaches the correct path because it says "I have no clue if I like this or not, but I hate all the other options". I don't if anybody mention this ever, but I see that computers have two kind of driving force: "Philia" and "Phobia". If they choose a path because they like it and understand why they like it, it is a "philic" behavior. If they choose a path without understanding what it is going to happen, just because the options are hated, that is a "phobic" behavior. Sometimes I see that a programmer has the option to approach a problem making the program to be phobic or philic. As an example of what I mean, take Fine70 problem. White finds the solution Kb1 driven by "philia". Suppose that white plays Kb2. Black plays and draw. Well, Black plays the correct move without seeing the draw (0.00).It never sees the draw but is is able to draw the game. How? it has "phobia" towards all the rest of the options, because is sees that those lose. My work (biochemistry) is affecting my hobby! horror! it is suppose to be the other way around! :-) Regards, Miguel Regards, Miguel
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.