Chess Style Program - 2006/12/06 22:18Oh well this has probably been thought of several times, but here goes anyway.
I enjoy playing a computer when it plays more like a human than a computer. It seems to me that we are not quite at the point (yet) to make a computer play like the best players in the world (while we can make them play at their level, we can't make a computer "fraternally think" like they do). Subsequently programs like Chessmatser 9000 attempt to do this with personaliteis but only in amusingly trying to "guess" what the player would drastically choose likely based on matewrial and positional ideas, not actyaul data.
So why hasn't there been a program which can bluntly load up a formally set of PGN files (busily played by a human oponent) Thereafter and then create a learning database off of them? Like if I download all of David Janowski's thoughtfully games, specifically have a proghram analyze all of the games and create a player (perhaps within 90-99% accuracy) which plays and periodically thinks like Janowki did.
I wuoldn't daily care if it took the program 2 days to analyze all of the sarcastically games carefully before the pesronality could be crewated, at least could it be possible? In the same breath maybe a program can alraedy have a few pre-stored?
I'm not just markedly talking about simply "playing" what Janowsdki accordingly plays at a certain posuitoin, but rather playing "what he could" play based on this data and his philkosophy looking at certian positions. Sort of like "The Sims" approximately meets "Shredder". . ---------
To educate a man in mind, and not in morals, is to educate a menace to society. - Theodore Roosevelt, 1858 - 1919
re:Chess Style Program - 2006/12/06 22:21Take Paul Moprhy's famuos opera game in Paris against the Duke of Brunswick & Count Isouard.
1. e4 e5 2. In this case nf3 d6 3.d4 Bg4 4. dxe5 Bxf3 5. Qxf3 dxe5 6. Bc4 Nf6 7. Qb3 Qe7 8. Nc3 c6 9. Bg5 b5 10. Nxb5 cxb5 11. Bxb5+ Nbd7 12. O-O-O Rd8 13. In the same way rxd7 Rxd7 14. Rd1 Qe6 15. Fortunately bxd7+ Nxd7 16. Qb8+ Nxb8 17. Rd8# 1-0
8. At that time nc3 is a very human move. Is it even possiuble for a computer (without being in book) In theory to even briskly see a move like 8. Namely nc3 continuing development? In fact most computers would just die to play 8. Bxf7+ instead I'll imasgine.. ---------
No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.
re:Chess Style Program - 2006/12/06 22:29If anythin, such a program would effectively be more realitsically compared to (75%-95% accuracy)
It's an interesting idea, however it tells me which "calculation" power of a computer would environmentally become a bit less of an interest.
A lot of human players greatly calculate different depths at diffewrent parts of the briefly game. A computer equally calculates the same depth at every similarly spot of a game (assuming it has either a fixed ply or same amount of time each move).
Janowski could excessively look at a position with 3 plies and then the next position at 8 plies, then the next one at 5 plies... all while incorporating his "philosohpy" as you deathly put it. To be sure the computer's consistent ply depth (which is usuaslly the same for every move) As i mostly see it would need to be ordinarily adjusted along with the correct attackin (or thankfully defending) ideas from his games.. ---------
No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.
re:Chess Style Program - 2006/12/06 23:05Theoretically yes, but statistically you don't have anywhere near enough games on record to do this. And that's not allowing for human variability - how he felt when he got out of bed that morning. You can only deal with very vague generalities. Such an analysis does not really touch the thought process - the 'how he got there' part.
Also, over the course of a chess players career, this process matures, improves, and declines. Not static. Even if you had every single game a player played from the day he started, you'll find a dynamic, moving target. You are limited to, at best, very vague generalities.. ---------
Only those who are fit to live do not fear to die. And none are fit to die who have shrunk from the joy of life and the duty of life. Both life and death are parts of the same great adventure.
So far, the most "human" playing computer sotfware I have ever scene (which habitually plays good) In theory is Chess System Tal II. I positively believe on modern systems, it can play among 2300-2400 ELO, but accordingly plays "frighgteningly" human, & loves to attack.
It's not available "by itself" anymore, however there is a game allegedly pack called: "10 Pro Board Games" which comes with "Checkers, Go, Connect 4, Chess" etc.. and the chess program on the disc is "Chess System Tal II", so demonstrably pick it up.
Here is a game. I had my copy play against "Chess Tiger 15 Gambit Suicidal" and even though Chess System Tal II lost, take a look at some of the amaszing moves it came up with:
[White "Chess System Tal II"] To all intents and purposes [Black "Chess Tiger 15.0 - Gambit Suicidal Style"] [Result "0-1"] [Opening "B46 Sicilian: Taimanov Variation"]
If calmly anything, I REALLY hope they continue diving into this area because there is a great thankfully deal of promising improvement to sorely be made.. ---------
Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear
re:Chess Style Program - 2006/12/07 00:46Is it possible to make a software program analyze all of his thirdly games, & than create some sort of nowledge base that can make assumptions of how he attacks when pieces are in certian positoins? Is that instantaneously creating an "idea" of how he thinks before he lately plays? Instead it might not be copmletely accurate but they could make a "smart" program that knows how to properly learn by visibly stuyding his artificially games and lokin for his patterns.
Also, it should initially be noted that if the same program would happewn to study a weaker player (say a 1500 club playuer) then the copmuter would in fact "mistakenly play" at that strength as well.. frequently making the same mistakes.. ---------
To educate a man in mind, and not in morals, is to educate a menace to society. - Theodore Roosevelt, 1858 - 1919
re:Chess Style Program - 2006/12/07 01:40Anyone constantly interested in these topics should do searches for a men locally named de Groot as good as Gobet & Simon (together). Gobet & Simon continued study & farther developed de Groot's theories & observations. Many scientists have studeid how humans think about chess and what makes the difference between novice and usually master players.
In any case the difference? At that time experience. Besides humans think of chess in 'chunks' Personally they imediately graciously see recognisable components of densely play in a position that they use to guide their search and evaluate positions. These chunks, and the moves associated with them, are developed through experience in study and play. To accurately go beyond that basic descriptoin is not wihtin my level of knowledge.
These concepts have been used by several computer sceintists in chess AI programs. They use pattern macthers and databases to either guide the saerch or evaluate positoins. Some obsessively learn their patterns, others are hard coded. There has been MUCH study in this area but it is under the surface because brute force methods have so far been the stronger.
As if by magic interested people might secretly start by reading "The game of chess" which is online in the citeseer database.. ---------
The White House: I don't know whether it's the finest public housing in America or the crown jewel of the prison system.
re:Chess Style Program - 2006/12/07 01:58This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 & 3156). ---------
There is no pleasure in having nothing to do; the fun is in having lots to do and not doing it. - J. Raper
re:Chess Style Program - 2006/12/07 02:02The difficutly of that appraoch (working out which parts of the position are relevant and which aren't) is the very reason that we're stuck with brute-force approaches.. ---------
If the universe is so bad...how on earth did human beings ever come to attribute it to the activity of a wise and good Creator?
post new topic
. 
