Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 02:44:52 07/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 07, 2003 at 01:49:50, Ralph Stoesser wrote: >On July 06, 2003 at 21:26:31, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On July 06, 2003 at 17:51:53, Ralph Stoesser wrote: >> >>>On July 06, 2003 at 17:38:01, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On July 06, 2003 at 16:21:05, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 06, 2003 at 15:42:25, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 06, 2003 at 08:00:48, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On July 06, 2003 at 03:04:07, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On July 06, 2003 at 01:15:41, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Well my point is just that when people talk about an application of ANN in chess >>>>>>>>they always talk about implementing the evaluation with an ANN, or tuning the >>>>>>>>evaluation with them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I think it tends to show that the application of ANN to chess has never been >>>>>>>>done by a "real" chess programmer. Because evaluation is only a part of a chess >>>>>>>>program. And maybe not the one that can be improved dramatically, or that needs >>>>>>>>them in order to be improved. Personally I would not use ANNs in the evaluation >>>>>>>>first, because I think they would be much more efficient somewhere else. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On the other hand, you are right. If one could design an ANN to perform the >>>>>>>>evaluation, it would be wise to use the same ANN (or an extension of it) to >>>>>>>>guide the search. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Christophe >>>>>>> >>>>>>>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 >>>>>> >>>>>>This is the same utter nonsense crap that i keep seeing AI people write. Yet on >>>>>>average they even have less experience than you and keep believing in something >>>>>>they can never proof to be made. If they would have even *toyed* with ANNs a bit >>>>>>they will understand more about the impossibilities about it. >>>>> >>>>>I only say that I believe that it can be done. >>>>>It does not mean that I know how to do it. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Show me a backgammon program with an ANN that beats a 5 turns fullwidth >>>>>>searching backgammon program :) >>>>>> >>>>>>Of course show it at a machine that you and i have at home. >>>>> >>>>>Very easy >>>>>the 5 turns fullwidth searching backgammon program is going to lose on time >>>>>every game. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>The average ANN expert is assuming he has to his availability something doing >>>>>>10^1000 calculations. >>>>> >>>>>I am not ANN expert and I did not suggest ideas how to do it. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>That is the major problem when talking to these guys. >>>>>> >>>>>>Of course you can optimize an ANN for chess in 10^1000 calculations. >>>>>> >>>>>>But you will then be beaten by a database of just 10^43. >>>>>> >>>>>>I am however sure that 99% of all ANN interested will not understand what i >>>>>>write here above, simply because they do not know the running time of the learn >>>>>>methods applied. If they would read themselves into that, then less crap would >>>>>>leave their mouth. >>>>> >>>>>I did not say that the learning methods that are used in backgammon can work in >>>>>chess and it is possible that people need to invent different learning methods. >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>If there was money to earn by programming a backgammon engine, i am sure some >>>>guys who are good in forward pruning algorithms like Johan de Koning would win >>>>every event there. It's like making a tictactoe program and then claiming that >>>>an ANN is going to work. >>> >>>Version 4 Professional edition, full version USD 380 >>>from http://www.snowie4.com/ >>> >>>Do you know the rules of Backgammon? Remember, you have to consider two dices in >>>your search tree. If it's so easy to do better without NN, do it and you will >>>earn a lot of USD. Usually backgammon players have more mony in their pocket >>>than chess players ;) >> >>There is so little backgammon players however. > > > >If you go to a backgammon >>tournament i pay like 250 euro entry fee. it is sick. Every good chessplayer can >>play backgammon very well trivially. >> >>It is a matter of a good % calculation and chances. this is trivial stuff. > >It isn't trivial. How do you explain that all top backgammon programs use NNs? >Shouldn't be some trivial statistically calculation enough? In backgammon you >have not only the problem to find the best move (what is also not trivially), >but to find the right cube action for the doubling cube and that's very very far >from beeing trivial. And why a good chessplayer should be able to play very well >backgammon trivially? I would agree that it can help learning beackgammon to be >a good chessplayer, but there is nothing like the implication you gave about it. > > >If >>there was to earn big bugs with just ENGINE (so i do not mean interface) then >>there would be much chessprogrammers writing such an engine ;) > >Btw: >Is there big bucks to earn with a chess engine? i guess chessmaster sold 6 million copies and i do not know about chessbase but all together they sell a lot of copies too. perhaps from fritz7 + fritz8 like 150000 or so? >> >>>Ralph >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>As we have a saying here: "In the land of the blind, one eyed is King". >>>> >>>>That's why i focus upon chess. >>>> >>>>In contradiction to you, i know how to do it with ANNs (just like many others >>>>do), i just don't have 10^1000 system time to actually let the learning >>>>algorithm finish ;) >>>> >>>>Any approximation in the meantime will be playing very lousy chess... >>>> >>>>Hell, with 10^1000 runs, even TD learning might be correctly finding the right >>>>parameter optimization :) >>>> >>>>TD learning is randomly flipping a few parameters each time. It's pretty close >>>>to GA's in that respect.
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.