|
|
|
|
|
by adamt
3757 days ago
|
|
That was really impressive. Other than playing very accurately, I felt it played far more human-like than most computer chess engines. I've written several chess engines, and have often wondered for some time whether or not there was a chance for a more AI/pattern-driven approach. Are you using your AI just for evaluation? E.g. do you have a traditional PVS/negascout (or similar) search? Presumably an 'extreme Type C' (no search) would fail to recognise various draws (50 move/repetition)? Good work :-) |
|
Right now I have just about as close to an "extreme type C" engine as possible. There is a neural network that maps from a board position directly to a ranked list of moves it wants to make., and a little bit of logic on top of that to reject illegal moves.
The recognition of wins/draws/losses is actually done in a layer around the engine, which doesn't understand these things yet. One of "tricks" it is vulnerable to right now is being forced into a draw by repetition, because doesn't know that is a thing to avoid.
Adding a more traditional search (augmented by the network, of course) is on my todo list, and I think it will improve the playing strength a lot. I am pleasantly surprised though, at how well it plays without any of that.