Author: Ingo Lindam
Date: 16:38:24 10/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 25, 2002 at 14:49:24, Sune Fischer wrote: >I think sometimes things take a while to sink in, even with researchers. >All these ideas may look good on paper, but there are some hefty pratical >obstacles. Consider the resolution on such an evaluator for instance, let's say >this NN is all the positional evaluation you have (and then some material bean >counting). Now you search 500 kNps and do maybe 100 kNps full evaluations (just >to throwing out some numbers). If you search for 10 secs that's 10^6 >evaluations, and you probably have not gone more than ~10-12 plies which means >most of the positions (except those few heavily extended) are going to be very >similar and extremely hard for a NN to distinguish, you really need an awsome >NN and with that kind of power better tricks are probably at your disposal. Hello Sune, I am not sure what I (or who) said misleading you to guess that I was thinking of a neural network. I was was thinking of a statistical approach using a more or less conventional search algorithm. Ofcourse I hope the statistical pattern allow a better pruning. For the generation of the pattern I thought of a very different data structure to represent the games. Spending more memory then e.g. cb-format but allowing a very efficient access by the lowest level pattern of a position. Best regards, Ingo
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.