Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: chess and neural networks

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 22:15:41 07/05/03

Go up one level in this thread


On July 06, 2003 at 00:25:49, Uri Blass wrote:
<snipped>
>>Maybe using it for the evaluation is not the most efficient use of a neural
>>network in a chess program. It seems that the way human players manage to search
>>the tree is vastly underestimated.
>>
>>
>>
>>    Christophe
>
>I agree with you that search is underestimated in chess but I also believe
>that search and evaluation are connected because a lot of search decisions are
>based on evaluation of positions that are not leaf positions so you cannot
>seperate them and say search improvement gives x elo and evaluation improvement
>gives y elo.
>
>Uri

I know that you did not try to seperate between them but my point is that if you
want to do the same as humans in the search then changing the search is not
enough.

Humans may search position for some seconds and decide that this position is not
good and later search the same position but decide that it is good for them not
because they search deeper but because they learned to change their evaluation
based on searching other lines that leaded to a similiar position.

Uri



This page took 0.04 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.