Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: chess and neural networks

Author: Albert Bertilsson

Date: 13:02:14 07/01/03

Go up one level in this thread

On July 01, 2003 at 15:55:07, Anthony Cozzie wrote:

>On July 01, 2003 at 15:42:42, Albert Bertilsson wrote:
>>>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
>Your engine, being new, still has a lot of bugs.  I'm not trying to insult you;
>it took me a full year to get my transposition table right.   At least, I think
>its right. Maybe.  Anyway, the point is that it takes quite a while to get a
>good framework. I suspect on ICC a program with PST evaluation only could get
>2200 blitz. (with material evaluation only it would play the opening horribly,
>e.g. Nc3-b1-c3-b1-c3 oh darn I lose my queen sort of stuff)

I agree that PST evaluation with Alpha-Beta and a transposition-table can play
at least decent chess, but that's quite many powerful improvements over MiniMax
with Material only.

/Regards Albert

This page took 0.03 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.