Author: Robert Henry Durrett
Date: 17:38:42 08/29/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 1998 at 20:07:17, Serge Desmarais wrote:
<snip>
>>THIS BEGS THE QUESTION: How could the chess software designer defeat this
>>strategy if he/she wanted to? How could more variety [or randomness] be added
>>to the middlegame without significantly reducing the computer's middlegame
>>strength?
>
>
> First of all, that is what the "book learning" is for. So after, with all
>your takebacks, you manage to win/draw, the program will NEVER EVER reach that
>same position when it was out of book in your game. Other forms of learning also
> prevent it since the applies once out of book ("position learning" and all.
>That is why, in Crafty for example, you can have the computer only play ONE
>defence with the same line over and over and as long as you draw or win, the
>computer's play will always vary. It will always try something new from game to
>game (the new try could be worse than the preceeding one, but will at least be
>different!).
>
>Serge Desmarais
(1) That is interesting. I really would like to know more about "book learning
and what you are calling "position learning."
(2)I did not know much about "book learning" but assumed that is merely changed
a "book" if it found a better move. It is not clear to me that it would have
found a better move here. Will it deliberately choose a second-best move just
to avoid repeating the same "book moves"? For example, if someone were to find
a way to draw the game, will the computer be so dissatisfied with the half-point
that it will deliberately replace the current move in the book with a
second-best move?
(3) The idea that there are two kinds of "learning" is also new to me. If I
understand you correctly, you are saying that the first kind, called "book
learning," is what would make the computer refuse to return to that same leaf
position. The second kind of "learning" is less clear.
(4)Intuitively, the "book learning" and "position learning" seem to be
implementations of a more general concept, which is "adaptive software," which
is a special case of "adaptive systems." I had the impression that these fields
were still in their infancy and that most chess programs simply had not made
much progress in adaptability of the software.
Best wishes,
Bob D.
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.