Computer Chess Club Archives

Search

Messages

Subject: Re: chess and neural networks

Author: Albert Bertilsson

Date: 12:42:42 07/01/03

Go up one level in this thread

>Yes, but things are different with chess. In backgammon, you don't need to do
>deep searches. Backgammon is a randomized game, chess is not. There have been
>attempts, but not that succesful, i have looked at KnightCap, which uses
>standard minimax with a ANN to evaluate the quiet positions.It has a rating of
>about 2200 at FICS... pretty good, but no way near the top. I guess a program
>with minimax only counting material would have a rating near that. Like they
>say, chess is 99% Tactics. Nothing beats deeper searching.

2200 on FICS with MiniMax counting material only?

That is crazy!

One of us is wrong, and hope it isn't me because I've spent many hours on my
engine and it still is now way near 2200 in anything other than Lightning! If
you're right I'm probably the worst chess programmer ever, or have missunderstod
your message completely.

/Regards Albert

• Re: chess and neural networks Anthony Cozzie 12:55:07 07/01/03
  • Re: chess and neural networks Albert Bertilsson 13:02:14 07/01/03
    • Re: chess and neural networks Magoo 13:17:37 07/01/03
      • Re: chess and neural networks Russell Reagan 16:43:43 07/01/03
      • Re: chess and neural networks Marc van Hal 14:08:29 07/01/03
        • Re: chess and neural networks Ralph Stoesser 14:27:06 07/01/03
          • Re: chess and neural networks Marc van Hal 07:46:03 07/02/03
            • Re: chess and neural networks Ralph Stoesser 08:57:36 07/02/03
              • Re: chess and neural networks Marc van Hal 10:28:47 07/02/03
                • Re: chess and neural networks Ralph Stoesser 11:17:46 07/02/03

This page took 0.01 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.