Author: Graham Laight
Date: 06:18:31 10/09/98
Once again, I have found myself pondering on the problem of making computer play more like human play. Setting aside the two obvious drawbacks (speed and getting the knowledge into the system), wouldn't setting up a rules base result in evaluating a position in a similar way to the way good humans do? (Or at least the way good humans SAY they do!) The way I would envisage it working would basically be as follows: - a position is presented to the rules base for evaluation - some of the rules "fire" - the firing of some rules causes other rules in the rule base to fire - each time a rule fires, it "scores" some aspect of the system - further code within each rule then creates a "weighting" for how important this rule is likely to be in this type of position (for example, if white is in check, and black is to move, then the weighting would be 100% because this is of fundamental importance) - the scores and weightings are used to make an evaluation If the system had roughly the same rules and weightings as a human player, one would expect the system to evaluate positions in the same way. I'd be interested to read people's thoughts on this.
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.