Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:45:32 08/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2002 at 17:26:35, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. It is hopeless to prove that you solved the game but it does not mean that it is hopeless to play perfect. It is possible that better evaluation function+better search rules are enough to find always the best move by search even with the hardware of today. > >>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. You can do it only if you have games of the relevant program at long time control and it is a good reason for programmers not to release their program and not to play public games with it for a long time. > >>Also, if not to solve then I am really disappointed. > >Sorry to disappoint you. No way a chess engine can dream of solving chess. We do not know. Today no engine is close to it but things may be different in the future. > >> 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. The question is how many plan to beat the commercial sometime in the future. > >>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. No if solving mean only playing the best move and not knowing the result. Maybe it is possible to solve chess with good evaluation and with search that is deep enough in the right lines. 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? Of course. There are already novelties that programs could find by search. <snipped> >> 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. I think that this assumption is wrong. I know that Amir Ban has a full time job not in chess programming. Uri
This page took 0.04 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.