Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: chess and neural networks

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 09:35:38 07/02/03

Go up one level in this thread


On July 01, 2003 at 13:32:19, Ralph Stoesser wrote:

>Hello *,
>
>Why no top engine uses neural networks for positional evaluation in non-tactical
>situations? Are there interesting publications about neural networks and chess
>programming?
>
>Ralph

because
  a) NN are too slow
  b) they do not work very well for situations they are not trained for
     and in chess you always explore new positions which are not trained yet,
     which is an easy thing to understand once you understand that chess has
     10^44 positions and you could train perhaps for 10^2 positions at
     most very well so missing around 10^40 somewhere.
  c) the persons that say they work for similar situations are on drugs
  d) training for chess takes more time than solving chess brute force costs
     In fact my approximation is 10^120 to train for chess a NN, under
     the condition that the NN has all the relevant knowledge. That is quite
     a big problem when you consider chess is x.10^43 according to
     latest findings.





This page took 0.01 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.