Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 17:03:22 05/17/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 1998 at 18:27:32, Robert Henry Durrett wrote: >On May 16, 1998 at 12:18:39, Dave Gomboc wrote: > Hi: This one just to say you have written a pretty piece of reasonning and clarity about this issue. Of course, the entire thing should be as you put it, otherwise its utility goes down. Fernando >> I have been working for eight months on the automated generation of >>opening repertoires for chess programs, something that will eventually >>find its way to publication (when I finish :). > > >The notion of "automating" the development of one's own personal opening >repertoire is probably something that every serious chessplayer would be >interested in. Of course, it would not be useful to have the process >totally automated, because most people would wish to customize their >personal opening repertoire(s), as it is being developed, to take into >account their personal preferences. Nevertheless, the availability of >newer and better software which would reduce the future efforts required >in the development of one's personal repertoire(s) would be really nice >to have. > >To illustrate the problems [which I see] which might be encountered >during the development of such software, suppose for the sake of >discussion that you have personally chosen [or dreamed-up] a set of >lines in the French Defense which you plan/wish/hope to play the next >time you get the opportunity. That set could be defined as your >"current" French Defense opening repertoire. > >So, you start with an opening repertoire. Then, you play a chess game. >Undoubtedly, your opponent plays something not covered by your "current" >French repertoire, throwing you out of your current repertoire. So, >during or after your post-mortem analyses for that game, you try to >decide in advance what you will play against the NEW move the next time >it occurs in your games. > >You, essentially, revise or expand your prior "current" French >repertoire to get your new "current" opening repertoire. By this >process, one produces a "living" repertoire. In other words, your >personal repertoire constantly changes, and most likely expands manyfold >over a period of years. [Repertoire development software must >accommodate this "living" aspect of any practical personal repertoire.] > >One's repertoire could profitably be considered to be a collection of >chess positions [where it is your move] rather than as a collection of >chess "lines." Essentially, for each position in the repertoire, with >you-to-move, you have a pre-selected move for yourself which you >previously selected while developing your personal repertoire. > >In other words, a repertoire can be considered to be a SET of PAIRS >where each pair consists of a position [with you to move] and a >preselected move which you intend to play in some future game if that >position occurs during that game. [If the repertoire is to be played >from the Black side, then all of the positions will be "Black-to-move."] > >One of the first questions a chessplayer would have to ask when trying >to prepare a future response to the surprise move is: "Would it be >possible to transpose back into my existing repertoire [viewed as a >collection of position-move pairs] from the new position by some >reasonable line?" If so, then the line(s) which would permit that would >bear serious consideration, assuming that it is known that the existing >repertoire is a good one. So, what you might have is either (1) "There >is no reasonable way to get back into my existing repertoire," or (2) >"There is at least one reasonable way to transpose back to a given >position in my existing repertoire," or (3) "There are several >different positions in my existing repertoire which I can transpose back >into by one or more reasonable lines." > >In the final analysis, at the most elemental level, what we have is the >programming problem of finding ways to connect two given positions by a >"reasonable" line. A line would be "reasonable" if it did not allow the >opponent any opportunity to steer the game into a position unfavorable >to you. The automated repertoire development program must, then, >contain a block of code [a subroutine or subprogram?] which would find >all "reasonable" lines connecting two given chess positions. > >[Aside: If there were no "reasonable" available line to transpose back >into the "known good" repertoire, then the task would become one of >coming up with something really new to you. Chess database software >might include games in which the "new" position occurred, and one might >be well advised to review how others had handled the "new" position >before making a final selection for one's updated personal repertoire.] > >I am not personally aware of any software which can perform the >"elemental" task of finding all "reasonable" lines connecting two given >positions. [Again, a "reasonable line" is a line which does not allow >the opponent any opportunity to steer the game into a position >unfavorable to you.] > >In fact, I suspect that it is the automation of finding these >"reasonable" lines [connecting two given positions] where the "rubber >will hit the road" for any automated repertoire software development >effort. Unless this problem can be solved, I'm not sure one could >automate repertoire development. I do not know of any existing software >which does this. > >The above are my thoughts regarding the problems one might encounter >during the development of "automated" repertoire development software. > >Does anybody else have any ideas about what the proposed new chess >software would have to do, and how it could be developed? Is the >existing software "good enough" already?
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.