Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 17:03:53 05/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 24, 2001 at 22:50:55, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote:
>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! :-)
Your last sentence is very much to the point. I mean, I see all the time
parallels between the internals of a chess program and life in general (and in
particular the mechanics of biological life).
Actually "life" and "chess programs" are both composed of entities trying to
survive in a competing world, so it's not surprising to find similarities.
The similarities are so numerous that I'm going to stop now before I start
writting a big book on the subject...
Christophe
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.