Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 14:26:35 08/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 28, 2002 at 09:19:08, Steve Coladonato wrote: [snip] >Are you saying that the purpose of the chess engine is not to "solve" chess but >rather to implement a programmer's knowledge of chess? It is absolutely hopeless to try to solve the game of chess with current technology. If we coupled together every CPU on earth and ran the strongest algorithms on them, it would not solve the game in a million centuries. >If not to solve, then >the big advantage the computer has is that it "knows" all openings and all lines >and of course does not have to commit anything to memory. Sometimes, the lines it knows are wrong. Even comically so. > It is tireless and >does not have to prepare for a specific opponent (although I will probably get >an argument here). I think that there is a big advantage to prepare for a specific opponent. What openings does he/she/it like the least? If we analyze every move they have ever played at long time control on a very fast computer, we can store that information into a database. Then we will be prepared for whatever they like to do (to some degree). For sure, this is a heck of a lot better than going in blind. >Also, if not to solve then I am really disappointed. Sorry to disappoint you. No way a chess engine can dream of solving chess. > Not that I want to see >chess solved but that the development of an engine is just to be the "best" >computer playing program and, of course, to reap the commercial rewards. Most programmers do not write chess programs to reap commercial rewards. There are 4-5 good commercial chess programs that sell well. There are 150 freely available chess engines. >And, >if not to solve, then I don't think the best heuristics nor algorithms are being >searched out. If the algorithms were written with a purpose of solving, then the eval function has to return only 1 or 1/2 or 0 for the three possible game states. The algorithms can be vastly simplified. Unfortuately, we don't have a vigintillion years to wait for a sensible reply from the program. > Just tweaking what already exists. Do you imagine that someone will invent new chess theory with a program? It's hard enough just to implement simple rules like: Tripled pawns always bad (but how bad is bad) Doubled pawns usually bad (unless a few cases where the front pawn is protected) > I think you have to be >willing to throw away a major part of your code to continue forward. I disagree. You may have to make small refinements to a huge body of existing code. You might have to do a medium amount of rework. You might have to do major surgery. You might have to scrap everything and start over. Nobody knows what the real answer is. > I think >the amateur programs have an advantage here in that there are no commercial >distractions to the development of their engines. I think the professionals have an advantage since they get to work on computer chess 40 hours a week or more.
This page took 0.03 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.