Author: Albert Silver
Date: 08:23:56 03/02/06
Go up one level in this thread
On March 01, 2006 at 17:56:42, Ryan B. wrote:
>On March 01, 2006 at 05:25:38, Vasik Rajlich wrote:
>
>>On February 28, 2006 at 08:22:54, John Sidles wrote:
>>
>>>Dear CCCers
>>>
>>>I'm much more a "lurker" here than any kind of chess expert, but
>>>I would be interested in learning from CCC's programming experts
>>>mroe about how (if at all) chess programs evaluate, not the score
>>>of the board, but the score of the move tree.
>>>
>>>The point being that maybe Rybka's surprising strength comes not
>>>from its knowledge of chess, but from a superior assessment of
>>>the branching and topology of the move tree.
>>>
>>>E.g., suppose white and black both look 15 moves ahead, and they
>>>foresee that with optimal play, the board score will be roughly
>>>equal. But even if the score is equal, if black's play is
>>>essentially forced, while white's play has many strategic
>>>options, then white has a huge advantage. In military language
>>>white's advantage is called a "favorable strategic landscape".
>>>
>>>So it is clearly important for any chess program to steer the
>>>game so as to achieve a favorable strategic landscape. There are
>>>at least two ways to do this. The first way is a highly tuned
>>>evaluation function, i.e., knowledge that rooks have a higher
>>>weight than knights.
>>>
>>>The second, more subtle way, is achieved purely by examining the
>>>branching and topology of the search tree, i.e., determining
>>>whether the strategic landscape with a rook in it is more
>>>favorable than the strategic landscape with a knight in it. This
>>>latter technique, in principle, requires no chess knowledge.
>>>
>>>A good program will use both methods. So I would be very
>>>interested to learn more about how chess program authors assess
>>>their search tree.
>>>
>>>SIncerely ... John Sidles
>>
>>Are you daring to question minimax? :)
>>
>>Vas
>
>
>Some people pick the search tree that looks like a rectangle. Some people pick
>the search tree that looks like a triangle. However just like the little wooden
>blocks I used to play with the hole is a circle and there is no circle block to
>put in the hole (I still think someone took it to be mean!) I guess the triangle
>will have to work for now. The rectangle is far too much work to get in the
>hole and takes far too long.
>
>Ryan
Not really. Just use BamBam technique:
"Rectangle peg will now go on round hole" Bam! Bam!...
Albert
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.