HDT@MIT-OZ@sri-unix (12/04/82)
From: Howard D. Trachtman <HDT at MIT-MC>
When I first heard about this list, all I knew about the
subject matter was that it dealt with chess, a subject for which I'm
interested in all of its aspects.
Until recently I've only seen details of chess games on this
list but I'd be more interested in almost anything else. As this list
is shared by the ArpaNet and the UUCP network, what do people WANT to
see discussed?
What do people know about how grandmasters conceptualize chess
positions or develop strategies in a particular game? I'd also like
to know any thoughts on how a program might try to discover a weakness
and then a plan do exploit it, as well as trying to figure out its
opponent's plan. I've heard of people saying that the next step for
writing computer chess programs would be to try to learn from past
games. How would one try to catagorize the sort of knowledge about
what classes of moves lead to what results in order to utilize past
experience effectively. I'd appreciate any and all thoughts; you can
mail to me personally if people on this list don't seem to want to
hear about these sorts of things.
--Howard Trachtman--
...alice!physics!mitccc!hdt
Hdt @ mit-mcmclure@SRI-UNIX@sri-unix (12/04/82)
A very good book about the thought processes of masters is Kotov's Think Like A Grandmaster.
VaughanW.REFLECS@HI-Multics@sri-unix (12/10/82)
Frankly, I thought that the main purpose of this list was to discuss computer chess -- both theory and implementation are of interest to me. I am bored silly by endless lists of moves. I do enjoy reading a good -interesting - game, particularly when well annotated. But the average computer chess game is not very interesting. UNLESS (and this is something I would really like to see) the game is annotated from the point of view of the program(mer) -- e.g. "CHESS79.6z considered moves x, y and z; it missed move w entirely; move z was chosen for its positional score of +nnn etc, etc" Bill Vaughan