Author: chandler yergin
Date: 19:37:18 10/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2005 at 17:12:16, Majd Al-Ansari wrote:
>On October 17, 2005 at 14:40:52, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On October 17, 2005 at 08:42:12, Mike Hood wrote:
>>
>>>On October 17, 2005 at 08:03:49, Vladimir Medvedev wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I was thinking why not have an algorithim that can recognize certain aspects of
>>>>>the position and then accordingly change parameters "on the fly". For example
>>>>>in the opening it would use certain parameters, then when the position becomes
>>>>>dynamic again a change in parameters, if both bishops are on again another
>>>>>parameter.
>>>>
>>>>A brilliant idea: when position is good algorithm should evaluate it as good,
>>>>and when position is bad, it should be evaluated as bad. I wonder why no chess
>>>>programmer implemented this simple approach during 40+ years of chess
>>>>programming...
>>>
>>>The problem with this approach is: apart from very general classifications
>>>("opening", "middlegame", "endgame") it would be necessary to build the position
>>>recognition and parameter alteration into the algorithm in order to analyse a
>>>position. And if a position is recognized, why not just add a positional offset
>>>point or two to the evaluation rather than alter the parameters? Even obvious
>>>positional criteria such as passed pawns aren't as clear cut for parameter
>>>changes. There may be a passed pawn on the board now, but it could be gone after
>>>6 plies into the search.
>>>
>>>I'm not saying that the dynamic parameter approach is impossible to implement.
>>>All I'm saying is that this approach would probably lead to an overall weaker
>>>engine.
>>
>>
>>I think that it is possible to use this approach in opening book.
>>
>>opening book today include only moves.
>>
>>I think that it may be better to include after every move recommended
>>personality to use in case that the opponent get you out of book.
>>
>>The main problem with this approach is that you may need a lot of testing to do.
>>
>>You may find that personality X does the engine 50 elo better in lines that are
>>A54 based on the ECO but you may need months of testing by a tester in order to
>>get the details of personality X .
>>
>>I think that in order to succeed with this approach you may need hundrends of
>>testers when everyone of them will investigate different ECO line and no
>>programmer have today hundreds of testers to help him to improve his program.
>>
>>Uri
>
>
>Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I was thinking on more in terms of solving
>certain test problems. You can change the engine parameters where one setting
>does very well on a test suite but somehow results are weaker. If an algorithim
>can be designed in such a way so as to understand a certain position and thus
>adjust its parameters on the fly, I think would not need too much testing. I
>think this would be an amazingly powerful implementation of the engine.
Yes it would, I have been thinking along these lines exactly.
I don't think it would be too difficult to Program what you & I are thinking
about. E-Mail me if you would like to discuss it, and present your own concept
of how it would work,
Thanks,
Chan
For
>example if the position is starting to get blocked the parameters would be more
>on looking for long term solutions that require conservative manoeuvering and
>less aggressive settings. Now if the position has lots of heavy pieces near the
>enemy king the parameters would change to much more aggressive settings, looking
>to possibly pile more pieces there or look for sacrificial attacks that expose
>the king. In theory at least it seems like it would be worth a try. It would
>certainly make engines much more human like. I have seen games from engines
>such as Junior which will do fantastic build ups and dramatic attacks, but seem
>to feel uncomfortable in quite positions and try to stir up complications
>because of their aggressive settings. Then they over extend themselves and are
>helpless when the initiative is lost.
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.