Author: Wayne Lowrance
Date: 07:50:41 05/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2005 at 09:06:29, Michael Yee wrote: >On May 12, 2005 at 07:00:35, Peter Fendrich wrote: > >>On May 12, 2005 at 01:57:19, Steven Edwards wrote: >> >>>Symbolic: Status report 2005.05.12 >>> >>>The preliminary version of the genetic algorithm framework is complete. >>>Complete details would take many pages, so I'll just post a brief overview of >>>the initial experiment and the results. >>> >>>The shortest mating test suite, Bloss (fourteen positions), was chosen for the >>>first tests because of its brevity. For detecting mating attack moves, a >>>species template containing twenty microfeature recognizers was defined. A >>>habitat containing one hundred randomly generated organisms of the species was >>>generated with the organisms' selective power measured against the best moves in >>>the Bloss suite. The highest ranking initial organism did fairly well, >>>correctly selecting the best move in eight out of the fourteen problems. >>> >>>After the initial habitat generation, the habitat is repeatedly cycled. Each >>>cycle consists of picking two parents (with a selection bias based on merit), >>>producing an offspring, mutating the offspring slightly, measuring the >>>offspring's merit against the suite, and then inserting the offspring into the >>>habitat (if it's better than the least fit occupant; the least fit occupant is >>>removed). A new offspring organism that outranks all the earlier ones is >>>displayed on the ChessLisp console. >>> >>>After 101 cycles, a new champion organism was produced that matched nine of the >>>Bloss problems. After 285 cycles a ten matcher was found. And on cycle 411 an >>>organism was found that matched eleven. A twelve of fourteen matcher was >>>produced on cycle 453, and a thirteen match organism appeared on habitat cycle >>>1297. >>> >>>More to come. >> >>Hi Steven, >>It would be interesting to hear more about this GA approach. >>Maybe you have a hompage and can put som information there? >>/Peter > >I second Peter's request :) > >Would it be possible to explain the nature of the features and how you computed >the fitness? For example, were the microfeatures pre-constructed and the >chromosome's genes the weights? Or were the microfeatures themselves the genes >of the chromosome and was the fitness computed by having the chromosome score >each move according to some function of the presence of the chromosome's >particular features? > >Thanks, >Mich huh ? we talking chess here ? Wayne
This page took 0.01 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.