Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

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 0.01 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.