Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: chess and neural networks

Author: Ingo Lindam

Date: 15:33:33 07/06/03

Go up one level in this thread

Hello Vincent,

thanks for the doctor title. Although I feel I got this title more by confusing
you than by convincing or impressing you. May I try to explain atleast some
statements to make sure that I am neither awake for days nor on drugs.

On July 06, 2003 at 17:18:17, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

>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
>>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?

As I understood Uri he suggests (or just dreams of) to let the computer
change/learn the evaluation as a result of a running search. So assuming the
computer visits some million positions within that search, for you as well as
for me remains the question, what are the hard facts the computer can learn
from. And therefore such a learning would be more dangerous than promising.
Besides that I just admitted that if there are reliable results in a search
tree, as e.g. some mate scores, you could let learn the computer from that (but
ofcourse it would have probably no influence on the current evaluation or
atleast not more than the mate scores itselves).

Nevertheless I am convinced, that it is possible to let computers learn
evaluation criteria (and weights for or dependencies between several of them)
from a huge amount of high level games and their results and also from analysis
made on these games.

>You jump from 'result' to 'current position' in an unexplainable way.
>How is this possible?

I don't see me jump from 'result' to 'current position'... but I agree, that not
all my thoughts are formulated in a way that can't be misunderstood...

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

When I said current position, I always meant the current position in a running
evaluation process/game. Therefor I can't have a result (because game is still
running). For finished games I see a result just as a good/bad experience with
all positions leading to the result. I a feature/ the combination of some
features of a position is not always bad you should not only make bad
experiences in a huge amount of games where that feature occurred. This is not a
formular and not an algorithm... and also nothing leads from 'results' to
'current positions'.

>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 :)

Well, I expect an objection by Rolf.

For my part...: This secenario is just an exaggeration (and influenced by my
kind of humor) of the danger I discribed above, when a machine changes (all)
it's evalution just by occurences and evaluations of the positions in the search

>>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,

Internette Gruesse,

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.