Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 11:20:48 11/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 1999 at 13:48:35, Fernando Villegas wrote:
>On November 19, 1999 at 23:21:24, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On November 19, 1999 at 18:13:31, Fernando Villegas wrote:
>>
>>>On November 19, 1999 at 13:23:46, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>>>
>>>>On November 19, 1999 at 03:08:35, Bernhard Bauer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Do I have a defective disc or is Nimzo 7.32 a defective program in this
>>>>>>>>>area? Or have I missed something?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is no contradiction.
>>>>>>you do not lose more than few elo ratings by not knowing KBN vs K and KBB vs K
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Uri
>>>>>
>>>>>This is the typical bean counters argument: Rating points.
>>>>>You do not lose more than a few rating points by not knowing this and that,
>>>>>so what you get is kind of a cripple chess with some nice features like the
>>>>>insufficient material feature.
>>>>>I want a chess program to be able to play chess in *any* possible position.
>>>>>Every thing else is poor. I don't mind about rating points in computer chess.
>>>>>Kind regards
>>>>>Bernhard
>>>>
>>>>The programs are generalists, and that is the problem. There are some specific
>>>>cases they do not handle well. KBN vs K in particular requires an extra
>>>>heuristic in order to perform well. In a normal endgame position you will not
>>>>try to force the opposing king to the corner that is the same color as the
>>>>bishop, but this bit of information is extremely important in KBN vs K.
>>>>
>>>>So unless you program some extra help in, a program will play that ending
>>>>sub-optimally.
>>>>
>>>>There are always going to be positions that the program doesn't understand as
>>>>well as a person, since it is different from a person.
>>>>
>>>>You are right to demand that specific rare yet interesting cases be covered,
>>>>though.
>>>>
>>>>This probably applies just as well in the middlegame. Computers play their type
>>>>of game very well, and this is sufficient to do well in most middlegames, but
>>>>there is obviously a lot of room for improvement.
>>>>
>>>>bruce
>>>
>>>I think I have said this time and again, but here I go again: why not to develop
>>>more "fragmented" programs, that is to say, not a full program supposed to do
>>>well in any aspect of the game, but one with a specific module to identify what
>>>is going on and then select another specific module to treat it? I presume
>>>something of he sort is currently done, but I suspect that a lot more can be
>>>done. In fact, is what human beings does: we does not play chess with the same
>>>package of ideas in the middle of ending, with this or that set of remaining
>>>pieces. In our case is unconscious, we just change our parameters and to begin
>>>with, pawns becomes a lot more important, the kind becomes ative, etc, but a
>>>program could do so provided the super-module had a complete -or almost- table
>>>of pattern positions to identify what is needed.
>>>Cheers
>>>fernando
>>
>>
>>This is done exactly in the way you describe in many chess programs already.
>>
>>For example Tiger does not use the same search algorithm in the middlegame and
>>in the endgame. Of course the evaluation is also totally different. And other
>>programs do that also.
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>
>Then take a look at what Bob said to "my" idea and continue the discussion with
>him, interpares as you are in programming.
>Fernando
Well... There is maybe not much to say. We know about the problem he describes
and avoid it by using smoothly evoluting evaluation functions... Not perfect but
not bad I would say...
Christophe
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.