Author: Mike Stoker
Date: 05:47:52 10/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 1998 at 16:59:52, Hristo wrote: >On October 27, 1998 at 06:04:02, Mike Stoker wrote: > >>Hello everyone, >> >>I am a newcomer to the CCC, although I have been passively interested in >>Computer Chess for a long time. Please excuse any statments in the following >>which appear ignorant!! >> >>I consider that it is high time to move away from the brute force method of >>chess playing - ie calculating 100000 positions per second. Whilst there is no >>doubt that this have achieved significant results over the past few years, the >>fact that top class humans can accomplish as good or better results looking at >>just 2 or 3 positions per second would suggest that we might be missing >>something. >> >>I believe this missing ingredient is planning. Now computers obviously lack >>the features of a human which make our planning so efficient - i.e. logic, >>pattern recognition, reasoning etc. All of these things are in essence a way of >>generalising a wide variety of positions to extract just the relevant details. >> >>I believe that plans should be built up in much the same way as designs are - >>1. Consider the ultimate goal of what we are trying to achieve >>2. Break this goal down into a few subgoals >>3. Take the FIRST subgoal and break this down into further subgoals >>4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 until we can calculate the moves to accomplish the >>first subgoal. >> >>Take for example the case of K and P vs K >> The ultimate goal is mate. >> Subgoals are "Queen the Pawn" and "Force Mate". >> >>My assertion therefore is that we never need to CALCULATE past the first >>subgoal, when we can recognise that conditions are ripe for accomplishment of >>the remaining larger goals. >> >>Vast savings in calculations can be obtained by working out general rules to >>accomplish the lowest level goals. For example in "Queening a Pawm", a program >>needs to work out the rules that if a Pawn is closer to the queening square than >>a king, then it just needs to push the Pawn, otherwise, it needs to support the >>pawn with the king, by taking the "Opposition" etc. >> >>As a challenge to all chess programmers, it would be interesting to see if >>anyone can derive the rules required to promote a pawn without it being >>captured, based solely on a knowledge of the legal game moves. This one of the >>most simplistic chess positions, but obviously not a trivial task. However, if >>we can accomplish this, I believe it will be a giant leap forward in the quest >>for more intelligent computer programs. >> >>Mike. > >Mike, I totlay agree with the general conclusion about brute-force or >"inteligent"(different) approach for solving the "chess". >I've tried to start conversations about this in this forum, but most people >don't want to think about this. They need results and they need them now! >Be prepared to get *edjucated* ... >Meanwhile I'm working on a chess engine, which uses a completely "alien" >approach. It's tough when there is not enough time to be able to concentrate on >the problems I'm facing. Designing a chess engine using the "old" style of >building up alfa-beta trees, implementing some subjective(what is the material >value of the pieces? How important is the material?) chess knowledge is >relatively easier than starting with a fresh approach and getting it to work. >So it will take time even for those who are interested to try something >different. Will it work?! I don't know. I have some very interesting results ... >but the program is still not playing chess. :((( > >What you suggest as possible approach might actually result in some very >interesting chess algorithms ... the only problem that I see is the definition >of "subgoals"! This is where things can go wrong or good! :) > >cheers >Good luck. >hristo Hi Hristo, I've just started designing my own "intellegent" chess program. If I find any interesting results, I'll let you know. I'd be grateful if you could keep me informed of any progress you make - either by this forum or by email. In this way, we may be able to cut our workload in half. If anyone else is interested in making a collective effort at programming more intellegent chess, let us know!! Cheers, Mike.
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.