Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: chess and neural networks

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 17:38:09 07/02/03

Go up one level in this thread

On July 02, 2003 at 12:44:56, Ingo Lindam wrote:

>>  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.
>I am not voting for using NNs for chess, but is b) a fair agrument?
>Isn't it sufficient to see all significant features of positions often enough.
>Also a GM doesn't see 10^44 positions before he starts to play as a GM.
>Ofcourse the GM does obtain and evaluate some very concrete lines. And I don't
>suggest neither a human being nor a computer to play chess without calculating
>concrete lines. (As well as I would not suggest to play chess without having
>plans and aims and some kind of chess knowledge)

Actually this problem is caused by 2 reasons
  a) they get imperfect trained
  b) all of the training algorithms are assuming the above b argument.
     that's why NNs work for voice recognition a bit, as you usually have
     the same voice, but they do not work for evaluatoin of chess positions
     in playing programs because it is each time a new situation.

     It has no understanding like you and i do, all it has is a few
     stupid parameters that it can tune. that's it. It doesn't even know
     what a parameter influences in fact. It is all experiments that are
     independant from each other. That's a real weakness trivially.

>Internette Gruesse,

This page took 0.02 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.