Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 07:28:07 10/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 25, 2002 at 19:50:05, Ingo Lindam wrote: >On October 25, 2002 at 13:14:28, José Carlos wrote: > >> 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. >> >> José C. > >Hello Jose, > >two very very very simple patterns might be > >(P+,P=,P-)(Pe4,Pg4,Nf5,pe5,pg5) = (0.5,0.3,0.2) >(P+,P=,P-)(Pf3,Pg4,Nh2,pg5) = (0.2,0.29,0.51) > >these are just two as I said very very simple pattern you might derive or >"check" by your chessbase. > >Best regards, >Ingo This is to check to see if I understand your idea: One could go to a very large collection of high-quality master games [Megabase] and do some research on patterns. For each pattern, one could first identify all games in which that pattern occurred. Then, in each game, one could estimate your three probabilities at the point in the game where that pattern first occurred. Repeat for all patterns of interest, to produce a table of data. The first column of the table might be a name of the pattern and the next three columns be your probabilities. Additional columns might give other statistical information such as confidence levels. Each row would be for a different pattern. Am I on track so far? One could extend this idea to identify degree of correlation between a new pattern [which unexpectedly occurs in a game being examined or played] and one of the patterns in your selected set of patterns. There would have to be criteria and a method for computing the correlation numbers. [This could get messy.] The next logical step would be to compute the probabilities for the new position. This set of probabilities [a probability vector?] might be regarded as being a function of the similar positions. Generally, one would expect that there would be several or many positions in your position database which would be regarded as being similar enough to be considered. Am I still on track? Incidentally, the programmers have the trivial [? : )] task of figuring out how to make all this work. Back to the idea: All of this must be done for each move. Would you still have search algorithms? If so, then all this maybe would have to be done at each move in a string of moves being evaluated by the searching. This all appears very interesting for the future computers where there might be millions or billions of microscopic microprocessors on a single chip. One could have each of these microprocessors dedicated to a single pattern in your database of patterns. Well, my wife is hollering for me to come eat breakfast, so that's it for now. Bob D.
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.