Author: KarinsDad
Date: 12:22:23 04/14/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 14, 1999 at 13:53:07, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On April 14, 1999 at 11:42:31, Keith Kitson wrote: > > >I think that it is a mistake to attempt to model chess software based on "how >humans play". The von Neumann-style CPU has different strengths and weaknesses >than our own brains. They are relatively bad at pattern recognition, and >relative good at search, so it behooves us to harness the power of its ability >to search, and indeed, that is what every successful program is doing. I am not sure I agree. I think that people (even programmers) solve problems using methods that are easy to understand and will achieve approximate results. They do not always code using accurate, but complex methods when a simple, easy to understand one will do. For example, current programs are using opening books as opposed to figuring out the best move on the fly. They are also doing something similar via tablebases. If chess programs are much better tactically, then it would seem that if programmed properly, they would also be much better at calculating the best move in an opening. However, it is much easier to create an opening book than it is to write algorithms to play good opening moves. Also, it is easier to write learning software since an opening book is being used than it is to write good opening move software in the first place. Crafty has code in it's evaluation function which indicates that certain types of moves are bad so that Crafty will not lose in certain types (i.e. patterns) of positions. The code I am writing recognizes that it is good to have one of your knights on a given square, so the sorting routines give moves that get that knight there a higher priority in the sort than usual. This is a type of pattern recognition, it is just a "coded" type of pattern recognition. The program still uses a search technique, it just changes the order in which it searches based on what it considers as good and bad moves / piece squares. KarinsDad :) > >With respect to the clearing of hash tables, the number of leaf nodes dominates >the number of internal nodes in a position, so it's not extremely important to >keep it. Some developers find that the increase in strength in storing >information in the hash table that is not valid from one search to the next is >worth more than the (small) decrease that occurs by having "cleared" (and it is >probably not really cleared, just timestamped) the hash table. > >Dave Gomboc
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.