Re: Chessprogams with the most chessknowing
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2014 12:48 am
Diep was supposed to be loaded with knowledge. Too bad it wasn't made publicly available by its author, so it's hard to be more specific.Henryval wrote:Which Chessprogram(s) have the most implemented chessknowing. And are there more than a few proofs out there in the chesscommunity?
I wonder why we don't have any ranking about this issue.
I wish there were more engines that emphasized knowledge and positional factors, even at the expense of tactics or speed. Even weaker engines are already quite strong tactically when compared to a human master, but many are so lacking in positional understanding and (especially) endgame knowledge.
A more viable AI-oriented approach would just build up the knowledge and produce a more well-rounded, human-like engine. This would likely serve to de-emphasize tactics, since it would by necessity slow down the search speed.
The prevalent (non-AI) philosophy among developers is that "you can't make any changes, no matter how promising, that weaken the engine - even by 1 Elo point!". This rigid mode of thinking can work very well as far gaining points against other engines, but tends to leave noticeable knowledge gaps that show up in actual play, IF anyone pays close attention to the games.
Don't get me wrong, the strongest engines of today play marvelous chess for the most part, but then how come we still find common openings and structures (like the KID) that they grossly misevaluate?
At the end of the day, the Elo list-climbing approach will clearly beat out the knowledge-laden one in terms of pure chess strength, and this puts the latter in an undeserved bad light. My take on this is that we should not lose sight of the benefits of having knowledge-based engines as realistic analysis and sparring partners. After all, engines are created for humans' enjoyment.
I wouldn't gripe about a hypothetical program that could play a decent King's Indian on its own but was "only" about 2400-2500 Elo strong due to relative "tactical weakness" induced by all the extra knowledge! Would anyone view it as a "failure" because it's nowhere near Komodo in strength? I know I'd be impressed by such an achievement!
If you are a programmer who would like to add a lot more knowledge to your engine, I'd encourage you to go ahead without hesitation and let the chips fall where they may. Never let anyone cause you to mistake your achievements as being "inferior" to some pre-defined standard.