Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: chess and neural networks

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 14:18:17 07/06/03

Go up one level in this thread


On July 06, 2003 at 08:38:35, Ingo Lindam wrote:

>On July 06, 2003 at 08:00:48, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>I believe that the biggest advantage that can be achieved in evaluation is not
>>in changing the initial static evaluation but in learning to change the
>>evaluation during the game based on the results of the search.
>>
>>I also do not believe that what humans know is the target and the target should
>>be better than what humans know.
>>
>>programs found better evaluation than humans in backgammon and program may find
>>better search rules than humans in chess not because programs are smarter but
>>because programs may do trillions of calculation to learn and humans cannot do
>>it.
>>
>>Uri
>
>That is an interesting idea and should really offer a lot of chances.
>Nevertheless, I would also fear some risks and would be already happy when the
>machine would first learn from finished games and the analysis of finished games
>(wich also includes a lot of search trees) and modifies the evaluation just on
>the basis of the current position and the experiences made before the current
>game. Learning from the searchtree in a completely new position might make sense
>ofcourse when there are some reliable evaluation results.

It says from: Ingo Lindam

I interpret this as you stating that letting it learn the search is a joke
because it can't even trust its own evaluation yet, therefore it is already a
too big of a challenge to do.... ...but then the rest of the lines is not
parsable by me. Yes what exactly?

You jump from 'result' to 'current position' in an unexplainable way.

How is this possible?

Which formula gives you from the result of a game the 'current' position where
evaluation has to be modified for?

I'm missing a major step there which no AI dude so far managed to convert into 0
and 1, or in short a concrete working algorithm within say 10^10 calculations.

>Ofcourse the machine
>could also adapt the evaluation on the basis of some features of the searchtree,
>as the chances for the opoonent to make mistakes or the number of features
>occure in parts of the search tree don't fit to the abilities of the opponet,
>...

This dangerous step i'll skip as we never got here in the first place by normal
logics as no one managed to write an actual working
ConcludeWhereIsProblemFromGameResult() function :)

>I just would claim the machine not to change everything in evaluation just on
>basis of the search tree.

Now this statement made sense the first time i read it, but i know many will
disagree. Most will say that the search tree is a result from the evaluation and
they are right. It's only evaluation that matters in the end. Searching is a
pretty simple thing compared to evaluation.

The shape of the search tree T using a search method M is only influenced by
evaluation E applied to it.

There fore it is:

  M(E) = T

>If the machine calculates to long within search space
>it might occur that it throws away everything it ever learned about chess
>before, claiming "now I got the real view onto chess and chess strategies, I
>stop trusting all the old masters from now on, I don't trust my trainer anymore,
>I don't trust my programmer anymore, it's me that has the only right and
>ultimative view onto chess, don't stop me now... I am just reinventing chess..."

The first line made sense to me, but then i lose you. It would make more sense
when the 'posted by' was Rolf...

I would therefore swear you went out whole evening and came back at 7 AM or
something home then at 8:38 you posted this statement :)

>Such appearance of chess machine insane might be a very interesting experience
>of computer conscience (?)... but I would prefer happening it under control and
>not in a tournament... Although, it might make computer chess a record breaking
>TV attraction...

It is really interesting how from some crap statements of Uri you can finish in
the last sentence with 'record breaking'.

In any way i would award you doctor title in AI for free, because within a few
lines you exactly write down what i would expect from someone who wishes to get
doctor in AI to write down in his thesis ;)

>Internette Gruesse,
>Ingo



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.