Author: Stan Arts
Date: 06:08:43 04/07/05
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Steven I agree with Anthony and others that AB-type program play very good chess on the current type of computerarchitecture, but I agree with you that these programs don't always play chess in a very interesting way. To the human eye. Or that there are different interesting ways to make a computer play chess. So your approach to Symbolic is very interesting. As for myself, a few months ago I started with a new rewrite of Neurosis. Unfortunately can't seem to be motivated to write another chessprogram with a regular search, (and try to make it competitive to the strong programs, because there are a lot of them already, and takes a lot of effort to get anywhere near.) and I'm tired of the AB-type style of chess. Instead, I'm trying to combine an AB-type search with a more AI approach. It has sort of an overhead. That will be like a conscious brain that tries to steer in a certain direction, form "ideas" and remembers them/sticks to them. And an AB-search part that looks at tactics, and positional consequences, like "normal". But the overhead will still have influence on that and if a best AB- move really steers away from the current "idea" it might look for an alternative, and things like that. (So the search won't be very efficient, maybe getting true scores for several moves. But that's not so important. ) So, I hope my program will be able to do things like: Bluff. (If I've got a good position and formed a plan, but the plan turns to be bad later on by search, then maybe still continue the plan (depending on a few things) , and hope the opponent won't find the refutation.) If I've found I'll be mated by a really deep mate, not to sacrifice material to be mated in 11 instead of 10, but to play for complication, and hope the opponent doesn't see/find the mate. And things like that. It's not really possible to make a regular AB-program do that. This will only have use against humans, ofcourse.. And the search will be fairly similair to previous Neurosis's one, so I can mostly work on this overhead thing. Hope to have some news about it in a few months.. Goodluck with Symbolic ! Stan On April 06, 2005 at 18:29:07, Steven Edwards wrote: >From: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/whatisai/node1.html > ><Quote> >Q. What about chess? > >A. Alexander Kronrod, a Russian AI researcher, said ``Chess is the Drosophila >of AI.'' He was making an analogy with geneticists' use of that fruit fly to >study inheritance. Playing chess requires certain intellectual mechanisms and >not others. Chess programs now play at grandmaster level, but they do it with >limited intellectual mechanisms compared to those used by a human chess player, > substituting large amounts of computation for understanding. Once we >understand these mechanisms better, we can build human-level chess programs >that do far less computation than do present programs. > >Unfortunately, the competitive and commercial aspects of making computers play >chess have taken precedence over using chess as a scientific domain. It is as >if the geneticists after 1910 had organized fruit fly races and concentrated >their efforts on breeding fruit flies that could win these races. > ></Quote>
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.