Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: likelihood instead of pawnunits? + chess knowledge

Author: Josť Carlos

Date: 10:14:28 10/25/02

Go up one level in this thread

On October 25, 2002 at 12:39:38, Ingo Lindam wrote:

>I repost my former post under this new title just hoping to encourage
>more people to join the discussion:
>I am new at the Computer-Chess Club and would like to discuss some
>suggestions for (a new generation of) chess knowledge using (and
>generating?) chess engines. During my time at the university and at my
>first job after making my exams in computer science I was involved in
>statistical speech/pattern recognition and machine translation. That
>might atleast a reason for some of my ideas.
>I am not sure whether these suggestions have never been made or just
>named to be impossible to implement. (I am sure they are not.)
>I would really like to see the computers measure a position rather in a
>set of probabilities e.g. (P+,P=), where
>P+ = Probability in the position to evaluate white/player to move will
>win and
>P= = Probability that position will end in a draw
>P- = Probability in the position to evaluate white/player to move will
>with P+ + P= + P- = 1
>(also a confidation measure about the Probabilities might be useful)
>Ofcourse out of the set of probabilities a single measure could obtained
>to be optimization criteria in an search algorithm. A simple one would
>be P+ + 1/2P=, but also different formulas considering strength of
>opponent, standing of the match or just an increasing influence of P=
>when position is weak might be interesting.
>Even more important seems to me to demysticize terms like "chess
>knowledge", "experience", "plans", "positional criteria".
>There is such a huge amount of chess games and analysis in a computer
>readable/usable format and what else should be a source of chess
>knowledge than games and results? Yes, there are books and ideas of
>great human chess thinkers as Nimzowitsch. But also his ideas are
>experiences from his own analysis and games and should also be
>verifyable by modern pratical chess. And where not, they might be no
>longer of any use.
>A chess engine that is able to calculate 3 Million positions per second
>should have no problems with dealing with less than 2 Million. As more
>as a lot of conclusions out of the "experience" of 2 Million chess games
>may be drawn rather in preperation of a match than during a game.
>"Positional pattern" (another mysticized term reserved for human beings
>especially GMs) may easily formulated and efficiently retrieved on the
>basis of low level chess position items and clusters of those. Computer
>scientists may argue that there is a too huge amount of possible
>patterns. But a chess engine as well as a GM (not less a normal human
>chess player) should first of all be interested in patterns that often
>apear in practical chess.
>I expect that a CD (or DVD) full of positional chess patterns drawn out
>of a suitable number and choice of chess games (out of a permanently
>growing number) will have a much greater effect on the play and results
>of a chess knowledge using chess engine than 4 or 5  pieces tablebases
>have nowadays on the results of tablebases using chess engines.
>This suggestions or ideas or statements are no critisism of the current
>methods of chess engines. I have great respect of the ability of chess
>engines like ... (we know them all and I don't dare to bring them in an
>order or to leave a talented engine out).
>I just wonder if my suggestion or questions may cause a fruitful

  Sounds interesting, but a real example (even if it is simple) would help. The
idea alone is not useful, and has been suggested in the past.

  Josť C.

This page took 0.03 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.