Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 09:58:00 05/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2005 at 12:31:05, Steven Edwards wrote: >On May 12, 2005 at 12:18:10, Matthew Hull wrote: >>On May 12, 2005 at 12:09:11, Steven Edwards wrote: >>>On May 12, 2005 at 11:54:16, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>So, the initial test shows some success. You also indicate in another post that >>a more comprehensive problem set will be the next step, at which point you will >>have a mate-attack organism thingy with which to work. How many other organisms >>do you estimate will be needed to get a basic cognitive process to start taking >>over from the toolkit? Do you have a preliminary list of these in mind? > >I have it working on the 1,001 position suite BWTC. Later, I'll try automated >construction of a multithousand position suite from appropriate PGN data. > >Symbolic has a knowledge sequencer named KsSurveyor whose job is to identify >strategic themes in a position. Each recognized theme is posted as a Theme >instance in the Instance Database in the position search tree node for that >position which is later used by the rest of the planning process. My idea at >the moment is to have (at least) one species/organism for each theme. This >organism will be used to determine theme matching, any moves that will promote >the theme (along with ranking), and (via a one ply search) help determine >countermoves that work against the theme. > >The list of themes will be stolen from various chess books I have. Some themes >like MateAttack are simple in that they aren't parameterized. Other themes will >have target, region, and sequencing parameters. I see this process as similar to NN technology in terms of the utilization of processing resources. The bulk of the compute resource are consumed ahead of time, and the generalized "understanding" stored for later reference. The application of these learned things will require further effort in a game, but most of the effort will have already been computed and stored in generalized form. A traditional AB searcher remembers almost nothing and must re-compute it's "knowledge" frequently and afterward remembers nothing, except what may be in the transient hash table. The exception is the EGTB, whose compute resources were already consumed and don't need recalculation. The EGTB is the only thing "remembered" between games, except some basic position/book learning. But even the hash table and EGTB are not really "understanding", but just rote memeory. The conservation of computing effort is what I like most about your approach, and other approaches like NN.
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.