Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 06:04:42 11/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2002 at 05:23:56, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 27, 2002 at 04:58:36, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>On November 27, 2002 at 03:52:37, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >>>Consider backgammon. Despite the element of chance, alpha beta is still >>>applicable. Also, because if the element of chance, the game has a very high >>>branching factor. You must account for all possible rolls in addition to all the >>>possible legal moves with the checkers. >>> >>>The best backgammon programs play better than the best humans despite the high >>>branching factor. Humans do not really try to calculate all the possibilities, >>>so a program that searches just 3 ply ahead can outplay strong humans. >>> >>>The other oddity about backgammon is that the use of neural nets has actually >>>been effective for evaluation. This contrasts with the results in chess. >>> >>>If you are interested in reading more about this you can check out the following >>>site: http://www.bgsnowie.com/snowie/snowie.dhtml >> >> >>So is it fair to say that backgammon, despite having a high branching factor, is >>still playable by computers because it is a relatively simple game? For example, >>in backgammon, you say 3 ply is sufficient. Go programs can get 3 ply, but it's >>far from sufficient. > >The number of plies is not the important factor. > >In chess computers can get more plies in the endgame but it does not help them >to be relatively better against humans in the endgame. > >I think that the main problem in go is that it is hard to define the evaluation >function. Maybe that's the key. Dispense with the search algorithm entirely, and come up with a killer evaluation function. In theory, that would work in chess too. All you need is a perfect evaluation function to evaluate the initial position of the game. : ) Bob D. > >I expect chess programs to get at least master level in chess even if you >increase the size of the board to 100*100. > >Humans may have big problems in this game because it may take them time to >calculate if a move is legal. > >in 8*8 the eye can see immediately that the rook cannot go from c1 to d8 >in 100*100 board it is not going to be trivial to see that the rook cannot go >from y27 to z78 > >Uri
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.