Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 11:34:58 10/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 25, 2002 at 12:39:38, Ingo Lindam wrote: Seemingly your idea is a good one, but in fact chess engines do this. If you have a set of probabilities say you use 2 criteria. Now for move P1 you get back: A 0.75 B 1.00 Now for move P2 you get back: A 0.60 B 1.20 *somewhere* in the program you must have a function that's deciding which is better. P1 or P2. In short most likely you convert with a formula P1 to a value V1 and P2 to a value V2. Then you compare V1 with V2. Chess engines already do that. Their evaluation function already combines (A,B) to a V'. Then you just give back a single value V1 or V2. So in essence your thing is already getting done in the evaluation function of a program. You just make it yourself more difficult when you use 2 or 3 values. Best regards, Vincent >Hello, > >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 >lose > >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 >discussion. > >Ingo
This page took 0.01 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.