Author: Gunnar Andersson
Date: 06:09:46 10/27/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 26, 1998 at 18:40:59, Fernando Villegas wrote: >>- Ed - > > >Hi Ed: >If I did not understand bad, this system means Rebel will not play anymore a >line not because this line is flawed, BUT because he was not capable of getting >good results with it. If that is the thing, then Rebel is not learning to play >better, but just avoiding paths where he misshandles the game. This is more a >neurotic behaviour than a learning one. So, in the long run, what we'll have >will be not a more knowleadgable program ,but a more restricted one, a narrow >minded program stuck just with the liones he plays well qwith his actuial >programming. I think -although I know there is a great abysm between words and >implementation- that real learning should mean some kind of changes within the >source code. >Fernando I have been working on a computer Othello program for the last year (it's called Zebra and of decent strength, it has won all games against human players since January) and in this field the following scheme is used: For each book position, evaluate the best move not having been played in the game database using a midgame search. Then do a negamax over the entire game tree where won games are scored as +INFTY, lost as -INFTY and drawn as 0. In internal nodes the negamax is the best of the child nodes in the game tree and the best deviation move. This approach is used by all the top Othello programs. For it to make sense, the evaluation function must be quite good, but I don't think that is a problem for today's chess programs. Regards, / Gunnar Andersson
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.