Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 14:08:29 07/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2003 at 16:17:37, Magoo wrote: >On July 01, 2003 at 16:02:14, Albert Bertilsson wrote: > >>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) >>> >>>Anthony >> >>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 > >I said near, and when i say minimax, i really mean alphabeta (no one uses a >straightforward minimax). When my engine was "born" (minimardi) it had only >material evaluation, searching 4 ply, it could play a decent game. Rated around >1700 blitz at FICS. Now, consider searching around 8 ply, i think a rating >2000 >is not hard to imagine. My point was that in chess, the most important thing to >accuretly evaluate positions is a deep search. No matter what methods you use, >if you search deep your program will play decent. This is one of the reasons why >ANN have worked so well in backgammon and not in chess. Can't neural networks look deep ? Why is that? And do neural networks learn or not? Marc
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.