Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 09:05:48 10/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 1998 at 16:09:48, Marc van Hal wrote: >On October 09, 1998 at 12:47:00, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >> >>On October 09, 1998 at 09:18:31, Graham Laight wrote: >> >>>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" >I think the only thing you have to do is realy folowing the 7 basic rules >Karpovs rules on how to play chess I found out giving a program,s most of them >more mobelety and a litle higher valeu on passed pawns and a litle more to pawn >weaknes would give you a program wich plays good end games and openings ofcourse >won of the basic rules is to look where you oponent is weak and try to take >advantage of this also on piece on a paticulair square d3 or d6 the knight is >worth a qualety and a tempo is worth a pawn but you will be at least suprised >that most programs playing against these settings will give the position a wrong >valeu so it will say it stands +1.00 and the real valeu is 0.00 >most programs still have a lock at a litle worse position by material but tempo >wins from material if it is not to much look for instance at positions of the >sicilian dragon where the white rook on h1 is not more or even les then a pawn >but put the rook on e1 and it is worth the full 5.00 pieces want to be active so >mobilety is the answer also when more pieces come into action more tactical >manouveres will folow and using extra valeu on passed pawns make the game even >more tactical but you also have to move your pawns in such a way that it gets >more dificult for your oponent to move his pieces and ofcourse your pieces for >instance when a pawn is on a5 and a knight on c5 makes a stronger field for a >knight atacking the centre and d3 most programs dont create stong squares for >their pieces but this is what a program would make human I hope you can do >something with my sugestions >>> >>>- 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 is an example of the "just make it play like a human" solution to computer >>chess. The assumption is that it is possible to reduce the game to a set of >>positional maxims and tactical patterns, build some sort of system to recognize >>and weigh relative values of all of these, and out pops a move. >> >>I think that humans have a very good sense for positional maxims and tactical >>patterns, but they also have a very good sense for knowing when exceptions >>arise, and a good sense for knowing when they have to search a position that >>requires more investigation, and a system that is able to mimic this is going to >>be extremely complicated. >> >>Here's a specific example that we might be able to use to illustrate some of the >>problems involved here. >> >>Imagine white pawns on a5, b5, c5, black pawns on a7, b7, c7, with the kings at >>some random place on the k-side, white to move. This is a classic example of a >>pawn sneaker combination, white plays b6 and sacrifices two pawns in order to >>queen one. If you decide this is an important pattern, you need to be careful >>about where the kings are, in order to avoid exception cases. I doubt it ever >>works with the black king on b8, for instance. >> >>What do you do about this, define all of the exception cases beforehand? That >>sounds extremely tedious for little reward. You end up with a lot of time and a >>lot of hard coding, just to do one pattern, and even if you can do this here, >>you can't do this in the middlegame, where things are even more complicated. >> >>Do you somehow mark that something is up with this pattern, but you need to be >>careful about where the kings are? I don't see what this gains you over normal >>search. >> >>Do you have some general thing that understands when a sneaker is going to >>happen, and can understand it in relation to the rest of the board, including >>the position of the kings, and of other pawns which might still be mobile? If >>you can write that, I'll congratulate you in advance. >> >>bruce Now for once i can explain you a litle what I was talking about the knight on d3 or d6 is when it is conected to a pawn always worth a qualety in normal positions cause it makes Kasparov's Octopus ask it to every Grand master he will agree on this ofcourse not in an end game but in a midlegame most computer programs already now how to play endgames by pawns this is not where programs will go wrong sacreficing a pawn to create a passed pawn wich he will reconize but nimzo98 most times for example likes to play when his pawn is on b5 and white plays a4 to play b4 especialy when it is in the endgame for instance and that a tempo is worth a tempo is also a basic rule of chess and sacrefices of material to atack the king are also not old for some programs you have chesssystem Tal end ofcourse Rebel 10 End that is what I ment to say the Rules stay the same only programs mostely dont folow this rule doent move where you are weak but where you are strong for instance the Keres atack of the sicilian g4 h6 g5 Knight d7 so the knight moves to the queen site or the centre ofcourse this is theorie but it is an example an other example again in the sicilian is to play a rook and a knight to the c -file c4 this is basic for a human but not for al programs also if a knight can keep a piece on e5 when it can not be pused away is a positional strenght for whites position that tactical positions while come out of this isnt hard to see either so strong fields and mobelety that his the way to play like a human and some basic rules
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.