Author: Hristo
Date: 23:43:40 05/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
>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 Don, Fernando, I don't know if the current approach to solving the Chess game is fundamentally wrong. "We are also in alchemy times." Yes Fernando! I couldn't agree more. We read those postings about *tweaking* this and *tweaking* that. Well after years of *tweaking* it seems like the objective(of the game) has been lost. So can we start with redefining the OBJECTIVE. 1. What is the objective of the chess game? 2. What determines the path to achieving this objective?(the rules?!) 3. How are the chess-pieces different from each other?(do not apply common knowledge, since it will lead us to predetermined and possibly incorrect assumptions) 4. What is the relative *weight*(mass) for each chess-piece in relation to one another?(Consider a clear board with only one chess-piece on the board at a time) 5. How do the chess-pieces of the same color relate(interact) to each other on the board?(Consider chess board with only white chess-pieces) 6. How do the chess-pieces of opposite colors relate to each other? 7. How do we evaluate a chess-position based on the answers to the above questions? There is a huge amount of other questions that one can ask. But how about if we just answer these questions first! Remember to write down all other questions .... Don, you take too many things as a given ... "to avoid ridiculous lines of play" ... "perfect chess" ... Imagine we take all chess programs currently available and take them out of the *human* context of things, meaning we will not evaluate them against humans. Let those programs play ... you will see that every program will *lose* at least one game. Program that plays *perfect chess* will never lose unless it plays against a program that plays *perfect chess*( we don't even know if chess is a theoretical DRAW or win for WHITE(black)). Cheers. Hristo
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.