Author: Don Dailey
Date: 17:29:22 05/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 1998 at 14:02:24, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >On May 12, 1998 at 04:48:31, Hristo wrote: > >>Has anybody thought(experimented) about another approach for solving the >>chess game problem?! >>It seems that after all this time one would come up with the conclusion >>that the current algorithms are somewhat going in the wrong direction! >>The programs still play fairly good chess, but ultimately there isn't a >>single program that approaches the solution of the chess game. The >>algorithms based on creating and evaluating a tree of possibly "good" >>moves and *then*(or along the way) applying a filter criteria for fine >>tune the results, seem archaic. The concept of pure algorithm that >>resolves the chess-problem doesn't seem to be in the scope of all these >>extremely smart and knowledgeable people !!!!! The main concern remains >>centered around tests and tournament results and some silly ELO rating. >>Well, then one might ask "How come CraftyX.xx can not win against >>ChessMaster?! Crafty is updated continuously and yet it doesn't appear >>to have a better grip on what is going on, on the chess board! All these >>updates to all these programs ... and the results are still >>unpredictable .... !!??" >>I feel like there is another, much simpler and straight forward approach >>to the chess game. The problem with everyone is that nobody knows the >>correct questions to ask when trying to resolve the Chesss-game. > >>Have you ever thought of any alternative ways of getting to the bottom >>of this(Chess)?! >>I certainly have. Just don't want to speak too early ... since some of >>you might have been there already ... > >Yes, what about making an android out of Kasparov and then claiming >that computer is world champion? > >>Best regards to ALL! >>Hristo. >> >>p.s. >> What's up with this "jerk" on "alt.games.chess.computer" ... what an >>idiot anyway. >> ohh yes ... Bob why do you bother answering this stupid bastard?! >>:))) There's nothing fundamentally "flawed" about the way we're doing it now. It's led to extremely strong programs. It also seems to be more in harmony with what computers do well and what they do not do well at. The fact that we haven't solved chess is a good thing. There is still a challenge. But it may well be that another much better approach to chess exists which we have yet to discover. An interesting thought experiment is to ask the question, "how strong is the strongest chess program?" What do I mean by "strongest chess program?" Every possible program that can be written by a person, already exists in principle but is simply waiting to be discovered (and most never will.) So there exists a "very strongest one" or if you prefer a huge class of them all among the very best possible. Let's add the constraint that this program must fit on a 32 MEG modern Pentium machine. I have already written this program unless you also add the constraint, "very best program at 3 minutes a move." Would this hypothetical program play perfect chess? I think it either would, or it would come very close. At the very least it would blow away anything we have now. If it was search based (which seems plausible but let's not limit ourselves) it would have powerful pruning algorithms to avoid ridiculous lines of play with little or no risk. It would be capable of doing more than just search and evaluate (just like we do) and ... WAIT! I think I've figured it out!!! No just kidding. So I agree that we should keep looking for something better and not be afraid to try new ideas. - Don
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.