Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:01:57 10/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2005 at 22:25:20, chandler yergin 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
> Make your own Opening book! You simply import games from a large Database
>into your Engine Opening book, truncating them 20 moves beyond the ECO
>Classification. You can make it as large as you want. The .ctg of course must be
>your 'Write Data base' or 'reference' database. It is not a problem.
>To be up to date on Theory, download games every weeek from TWIC.
>Drag & Drop into the reference .ctg file.
I think that you do not understand the idea that I suggest.
The idea that I suggest is to have different personality in every opening line.
Today opening book only include moves but do not include suggested personality
for the program after the opening.
For example suppose that the program underevaluate king safety in the french
defence and overevaluate kingsafety in the spanish opening.
The opening book can include increasing king safety parameter by 10% relative to
the default value in the french defence and reducing it by 10% relative to the
default value in the spanish opening.
Of course in this case testers will need a lot of tests to design opening book
that may make the program significantly better.
Uri
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.