Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 02:48:05 03/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2004 at 05:06:09, Steven Edwards wrote: >A traditional program does work, and the deeper it can search, the better it >plays. But the main reason it works is because it can push its horizon further >than a player (human or program) that searches to a lesser depth. > >So it is not surprising that some authors have an almost obsessive attitude >towards having the fastest move generator, the lowest branching factor, the >quickest evaluation function, and a never satisfied yearning for ever swifter >and more numerous processors. All of these can help improve the playing >strength of a traditional iterative A/B program. > >But little, if any, of the above has anything to do with artificial intelligence >or with making contributions to other areas of research. Neither is there much >here that can be seriously considered novel; the number of significantly new >ideas in the field over the past decade is embarrassingly small. The big >mystery to me is why intelligent people continue to work on the same old model >that is now thirty years old; indeed, a model older than some of today's >authors! Wouldn't it be possible to construct a simple testbed to quickly try out a few of the ideas and see if they have merrit? >My effort, Symbolic, has a search space. Its search space is a plan space and >not a position/move tree. There is a position/move tree, but the plan space >search wholly governs its growth. The tree is not for discovery, but for plan >verification. Absolutely no nodes in the tree are expanded unless the plan >search process directs such expansion, one node at a time, and only for good >reason. The node count and the node frequency of the position/move tree is >merely an epiphenomenon of the actions of the plan search and so cannot be >compared to similar metrics of a traditional A/B searcher. In fact, given a >goal of modeling human behavior, an excessive node count or node frequency is >a >sure sign of failure. How does this work if winning a piece requires a 4 move combination? How do you make it search down the first few of those moves, moves which at first glance might even seem silly? I can see how you could generate objects of attack, but how do you effectively search down the "building up the attack" tree? Each move must be part of a greater plan, on its own it might seem like a silly move. How do you make this connection and utilize it? -S.
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.