Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 15:04:04 04/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 16, 1999 at 17:47:28, KarinsDad wrote: >On April 16, 1999 at 17:18:07, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >> >>So KarinsDad (or whatever your real name is :), are you suggesting that such a >>rule base be built using the tablebase info, or are you suggesting it be >>constructed without access to a tablebase? If the former, what would be the >>point? We already have perfect information that fits on hardware worth a couple >>of hundred bucks. If the latter, how? >> >>Dave > >Dave, > >What happens when the tablebases get up to 6 pieces and then 7, etc. Will it >still fit on a couple of hundred bucks of hardware (and last I heard, some of >the 5 piece tablebases were not perfect)? By that time, yes, they will. >Your second question is like "Why would you climb Mount Everest?". There could >be multiple reasons and different reasons for different people. Let's state flat out that I am not the sort to climb Mount Everest just because it is there. (Someone (Berliner?) once had a program called JBIIT! :). >Let's not restrict the problem to tablebases, but let's include Opening books. >Would you prefer your program to be GM level at opening play due to calculations >or due to an opening book? Which method is more adaptable to theoretical >novelties and which method would be more likely to result in a theoretical >novelty? There is a difference between compressing perfect play and innovating. The little actual work I have done in computer chess has been in the area of automated opening repertoire construction. (This can be contrasted with the large amount of goofing around I have done with computer chess. :-) >If you can find algorithms to solve the simple (relatively speaking) endgame >problems, wouldn't that be a step towards solving more complex ones or even >making the search/evaluation more sophisticated? You haven't convinced me that it would be. >The how is a totally different matter. That is why I brought up the question in >the first place. If I knew exactly how, I would put this into my program and >thumb my nose at all of those fancy programs that are limited to 5 piece >tablebases. It is extremely difficult to solve for some cases (I do not deny >this), but I also do not throw in the towel and say, "Oh well, we have >tablebases, why do we need that?". Tablebases encapsulate (roughly) perfect information. That's about as good as you can do. If you want to construct a decision tree that decides which positions are mates in 52 and which are mates in 173, feel free, take an ID3 engine or whatever and hammer at a tablebase. The decision tree it spits out is extremely unlikely to be of much use to a human chess player, though, so I don't see a particular purpose in doing so. If you just want to classify "win/draw", well that would work, but how will you guarantee that progress is made? Intermediate levels of resolution are possible, but since we have perfect information, I see no particular reason to give it away. >I would think that since most of us programmers are not GMs and therefore do not >have good endgame technique ourselves, that the first place to examine is the >current tablebases. It would be easier for us to dissect those with a program >than it would be to figure out algorithms on our own. It would be easier to grab a book like "Levenfish and Smyslov: Rook Endings" and become a GM! :-) >Also, if you save hard disk space by calculating the best moves on the fly and >minimizing the tablebases that we do have (as per my earlier posts), then the 6 >and 7 piece tablebases will also be smaller and we may find certain ones of >those that are more easily solved via a 4 piece or 5 piece table (if we can >re-use the algorithms). Calculating the best moves on the fly is something that would have to be done quickly, i.e. in less than the amount of time the disk I/O you are replacing would take. Is this possible? Perhaps. Of course, if your tablebases are preloaded into memory (like Chinook) then you will have a very tough time searching faster than a hash table lookup. >So, you tell me. Will this take a lot of work similar to the CAPPS (spelling?) >project? Yup. Will this help make the endgames of programs stronger in the >future? Probably. Do we know exactly how to do it? No. That's what this forum is >about: discussing possibilities. > >KarinsDad :) I'm discussing reasons why a possibility has remained "a possibility" for a long time. What's wrong with that? :-) Dave
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.