Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Bob Durrett

Date: 07:49:07 10/28/02

Go up one level in this thread

On October 28, 2002 at 09:02:25, Ingo Lindam wrote:

>On October 27, 2002 at 20:21:34, Bob Durrett wrote:
>>Similarly, in the middle of [in the gory guts of] a search algorithm, maybe >some of the positions occuring during the search could be evaluated the same
>>way. In
>>a purely serial machine [no parallel processing] I fear that the time required
>>for this computation might not leave enough time for the rest of the search.  In
>>other words, "not competitive."  If you are going serial, you have a big
>>challenge to make your engine competitive with current engines which do not [?]
>>use your idea.  Parallel processing is another matter, given the requisite
>Perhaps ... or perhaps not... ofcourse I would appreciate to divide the work of
>evaluation on a lot of parallel processors and the approach gives ofcourse some
>natural oportunities to divide it. But unfortunately I don't have access on a
>massive parallel system yet... so I have to watch how far I may come without it.
>An advantage of the approach might be to cut off a lot of the big tree and then
>have to compute much less nodes by using the knowledge.
>>Am I still at least "out in left field" on this one?  [Still in the ballpark?]
>Yes, you should still be in the ball park... because I am here in the infield
>catching your balls you throw towards me.
>>You envision producing a "black box" with inputs and outputs.  The inputs would
>>consist of one or two million master level chess games.  The outputs would be a
>>large set of patterns with associated properties &/or other useful data.
>>Right?  [If yes, then how?]
>Imagine... (hear the music)
>Imagine, you spend a little more storage to represent the positions of the 2
>million games that might be about 100 million positions in a data structure that
>allows you to have an efficient access on the information in which positions a
>pattern occurs. Now assume a and b to be pattern for wich you already know in
>which positions they occure. Then it is a very easy and efficient to obtain
>question in which positions the pattern c1 = a AND b and in which the pattern c2
>= a OR b occur. This can be obtained very very fast. And when you now further
>can use the fact that in chess you may a very unequal number of 0s and 1s in
>this representation you might save again a lot of storage and time.

Hmmm.  You are out of my league at this point.  Alas!  I am not a programmer.
[Just a retired engineer.]

I hope some of the computer chess gurus will choose to pick up the discussion of
the technical programming aspects of this topic.  I admit my limitations.

Best wishes,

Bob D.

This page took 0.02 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.