Hi all

I am about to start my master thesis in computer science and since I'm
interested in AI and chess I though computer chess might be my field of
work. Now, I don't wont to end up writing my own chess engine from scratch
only to find out 6 months later that it plays mediocre chess and that there
are lots of other open source engines that are a lot better. What I would
like to do is rather improve an existing algorithm or evaluate some new
exciting idea.

Please let me know if you guys have some ideas of what needs to be done
within computer chess research. I have a feeling that lots of things have
already been done (for instance with crafty), but I hope there are still
some work to do to make the best program play even stronger.

Regards
Martin

"martin nylin" wrote in message
...
Hi all

I am about to start my master thesis in computer science and since I'm
interested in AI and chess I though computer chess might be my field of
work. Now, I don't wont to end up writing my own chess engine from scratch
only to find out 6 months later that it plays mediocre chess and that
there
are lots of other open source engines that are a lot better. What I would
like to do is rather improve an existing algorithm or evaluate some new
exciting idea.

Please let me know if you guys have some ideas of what needs to be done
within computer chess research. I have a feeling that lots of things have
already been done (for instance with crafty), but I hope there are still
some work to do to make the best program play even stronger.

Regards
Martin



Chess engines have nothing to do AI.

Regards

I guess the one thing that programmers have strived to achieve is a program
that can see outside of its own parameters, and to sense and understand such
concepts as sacrifice traps.


"martin nylin" wrote in message
...
Hi all

I am about to start my master thesis in computer science and since I'm
interested in AI and chess I though computer chess might be my field of
work. Now, I don't wont to end up writing my own chess engine from scratch
only to find out 6 months later that it plays mediocre chess and that there
are lots of other open source engines that are a lot better. What I would
like to do is rather improve an existing algorithm or evaluate some new
exciting idea.

Please let me know if you guys have some ideas of what needs to be done
within computer chess research. I have a feeling that lots of things have
already been done (for instance with crafty), but I hope there are still
some work to do to make the best program play even stronger.

Regards
Martin

Hello Martin
You should be able to get good answers to this question by asking the same
question in the forum at talkchess.com, which is the forum for chess
programmers.

By the way, I wrote a book which can serve as an introduction to the subject
of computer chess. I have a deltailed explanation of the various blind spots
of the computer programs, and these are the areas in which computer chess
programmers needs to work more.

http://www.badbishop.com/gambit/books/computers.html


Some reviews of the book:
http://www.iecg.info/reviews/mjblake...computers1.htm
http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/jwatsonbkrev57.html


Best wishes,
Christian


"martin nylin" skrev i en meddelelse
...
Hi all

I am about to start my master thesis in computer science and since I'm
interested in AI and chess I though computer chess might be my field of
work. Now, I don't wont to end up writing my own chess engine from scratch
only to find out 6 months later that it plays mediocre chess and that
there
are lots of other open source engines that are a lot better. What I would
like to do is rather improve an existing algorithm or evaluate some new
exciting idea.

Please let me know if you guys have some ideas of what needs to be done
within computer chess research. I have a feeling that lots of things have
already been done (for instance with crafty), but I hope there are still
some work to do to make the best program play even stronger.

Regards
Martin

"martin nylin" wrote in message
...

Please let me know if you guys have some ideas of what needs to be done
within computer chess research. I have a feeling that lots of things have
already been done (for instance with crafty), but I hope there are still
some work to do to make the best program play even stronger.


Demonstrate superior move ordering without iterative searching, showing it
to be just as fast as iterative searching + transpositional tables!

It's a minor fetish of mine...

This might interest you: http://www.thorstenczub.de/complcss2.html
warm regards, GreyHipster
p.s. I thank CeeBee for providing me with the above link!



"martin nylin" wrote in message . ..
Hi all

I am about to start my master thesis in computer science and since I'm
interested in AI and chess I though computer chess might be my field of
work. Now, I don't wont to end up writing my own chess engine from scratch
only to find out 6 months later that it plays mediocre chess and that there
are lots of other open source engines that are a lot better. What I would
like to do is rather improve an existing algorithm or evaluate some new
exciting idea.

Please let me know if you guys have some ideas of what needs to be done
within computer chess research. I have a feeling that lots of things have
already been done (for instance with crafty), but I hope there are still
some work to do to make the best program play even stronger.

Regards
Martin

martin nylin wrote:
Please let me know if you guys have some ideas of what needs to be done
within computer chess research. I have a feeling that lots of things have
already been done (for instance with crafty), but I hope there are still
some work to do to make the best program play even stronger.


Address some other game than chess. Finding something
new in chess computing will be hard and demotivating.
The state of the art is so much advanced that you will
either
- spend too much time learning what other's have done,
leaving too little time to focus on something new
- or create something new and valuable, but find it hard to
demonstrate because other programs are so much stronger


Marcel
-- _ _
_| |_|_|
|_ |_
|_| Marcel van Kervinck

"Marcel van Kervinck" wrote in message
...
martin nylin wrote:
Please let me know if you guys have some ideas of what needs to be done
within computer chess research. I have a feeling that lots of things
have
already been done (for instance with crafty), but I hope there are still
some work to do to make the best program play even stronger.


Address some other game than chess. Finding something
new in chess computing will be hard and demotivating.
The state of the art is so much advanced that you will
either
- spend too much time learning what other's have done,
leaving too little time to focus on something new
- or create something new and valuable, but find it hard to
demonstrate because other programs are so much stronger

I have to second this. However, you can also consider
a chess variant. Less work has been done there, and you
can get a competitive program easier. And it's still
chess (somewhat) :-)

--
GCP

Explore algorithms of programs that improve with play and come up with one
of your own. That seems to be an obvious connecting of AI and chess.

Wilma

"martin nylin" wrote in message
...
Hi all

I am about to start my master thesis in computer science and since I'm
interested in AI and chess I though computer chess might be my field of
work. Now, I don't wont to end up writing my own chess engine from scratch
only to find out 6 months later that it plays mediocre chess and that
there
are lots of other open source engines that are a lot better. What I would
like to do is rather improve an existing algorithm or evaluate some new
exciting idea.

Please let me know if you guys have some ideas of what needs to be done
within computer chess research. I have a feeling that lots of things have
already been done (for instance with crafty), but I hope there are still
some work to do to make the best program play even stronger.

Regards
Martin

"Terry" wrote in message ...
"martin nylin" wrote in message
...
Hi all

I am about to start my master thesis in computer science and since I'm
interested in AI and chess I though computer chess might be my field of
work. Now, I don't wont to end up writing my own chess engine from scratch
only to find out 6 months later that it plays mediocre chess and that
there
are lots of other open source engines that are a lot better. What I would
like to do is rather improve an existing algorithm or evaluate some new
exciting idea.

Please let me know if you guys have some ideas of what needs to be done
within computer chess research. I have a feeling that lots of things have
already been done (for instance with crafty), but I hope there are still
some work to do to make the best program play even stronger.

Regards
Martin



Chess engines have nothing to do AI.

Regards


something I read:

"
Alexander Kronrod, a Russian AI researcher, said ``Chess is the
Drosophila of AI.'' He was making an analogy with geneticists' use of
that fruit fly to study inheritance. Playing chess requires certain
intellectual mechanisms and not others. Chess programs now play at
grandmaster level, but they do it with limited intellectual mechanisms
compared to those used by a human chess player, substituting large
amounts of computation for understanding. Once we understand these
mechanisms better, we can build human-level chess programs that do far
less computation than do present programs.

Unfortunately, the competitive and commercial aspects of making
computers play chess have taken precedence over using chess as a
scientific domain. It is as if the geneticists after 1910 had
organized fruit fly races and concentrated their efforts on breeding
fruit flies that could win these races.
"
ok - who has the fastest fruit fly?