gupta@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (07/28/88)
I will be starting my Master's this fall and am fascinated by Artificial Intelligence - especially in computer chess. Does anyone know of any good info (books, papers, authors, professors, articles, research projects) on this subject? Thanks --- Rohit Gupta Internet: gupta%uxe.cso.uiuc.edu@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu Champaign, Illinois UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uxe!gupta
jonathan@alberta.UUCP (Jonathan Schaeffer) (08/04/88)
In article <376@ksr.UUCP>, richt@breakpoint.ksr.com (Rich Title) writes: > There's a Carnegie Mellon PhD thesis by Carl Eberling, > that was published (by MIT press > I think) under the title "All the Right Moves". It describes HiTech, > the current world computer chess champion. That thesis in turn > points to other papers on computer chess. Hitech is NOT the World Computer Chess Champion. In the last championship in 1986, there was 1 4-way tie for first place between Cray Blitz, Hitech, Bebe, and Phoenix. Cray Blitz was awarded first place on tiebreak. "All the Right Moves" is a good thesis, but is not the best place to look for references. The International Computer Chess Journal is published quarterly with the latest in research results, tournaments, games, etc. That is the best place to look. Also, several computer chess bibliographies have been published. Perhaps the most comprehensive, albiet slightly out of date, is Tony Marsland's (available as a technical report from the University of Alberta). > Carnegie Mellon seems to be *the* place for computer chess. > Hans Berliner, former postal chess champion, is a comp sci > professor there. CMU is only one of a number of places with active computer chess groups. Others include University of Alberta, McGill University, University of Limburg, Bell Labs, Los Alamos National Lab, etc. > The techniques used in the top machines such as HiTech represent > impressive engineering, but aren't what most people think of > as "AI". Very fast searching, aided by hardware that generates > and evaluates moves in parallel and evaluates positions > in parallel. True, but that is not all the things people are doing in computer chess. As it stands right now, the strongest chess playing machines are more engineering than science. But do not underestimate the scientific component of computer chess. A lot of this work may not be high profile unless it is incorporated as part of a winning chess program, but it is still important, core AI research. > - Rich - Jonathan
turner@webb.psych.ufl.edu (Carl Turner) (02/14/91)
What is the current level of expertise in the best chess playing machines? Is the current machine champion still at CMU? And (for anyone familiar with the current chess efforts) how would you characterize the emphasis in making machines play better chess--faster machines, better algorithms to reduce search, storing patterns of "book moves," etc? The reason for my asking: in a recent AI class several people insisted that machines are playing at "grand master" level. Is this the case? Thanks for any information you can provide. -- vxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvx v Carl Turner Psychology Department x v turner@webb.psych.ufl.edu University of Florida, Gainesville FL 23611 x vxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvxvx
billmers@merlyn.enet.dec.com (Meyer Billmers) (02/14/91)
> Path: shlump.nac.dec.com!rust.zso.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!caen!uflorida!webb.psych.ufl.edu!turner > From: turner@webb.psych.ufl.edu (Carl Turner) > Newsgroups: comp.ai > Subject: Computer chess > Message-ID: <26892@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> > Date: 13 Feb 91 18:59:07 GMT > Sender: news@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU > Reply-To: turner@webb.psych.ufl.edu (Carl Turner) > Organization: University of Florida Psychology Department > Lines: 17 > > What is the current level of expertise in the best chess playing machines? > Is the current machine champion still at CMU? And (for anyone familiar > with the current chess efforts) how would you characterize the emphasis > in making machines play better chess--faster machines, better algorithms > to reduce search, storing patterns of "book moves," etc? Well, I'm not sure what's the current champion in an all-computer tournament, but as far as the chess world is concerned, Deep Thought (which comes from CMU) is the most serious palyer. There have been improvements in search algorithms and such, and research done by people like Berliner and his students in chunking to improve analysis. These are interesting: some years ago, a chunking algorithm found a win in an endgame line that was previously believed to be a draw in all the endgame literature. But interesting as this stuff is, it mostly remains research. Most improvements in playing ability have come from increases in processor speed. It is estimated that every doubling of compute power increases rating by 200 points, and some extrapolate that this will happen every year to 18 months. > > The reason for my asking: in a recent AI class several people insisted > that machines are playing at "grand master" level. Is this the case? > Deep thought certainly is playing at or around GM level. At the US Open in Boston a few (2 ?) years ago, it pulled a major upset against an International Master, who proceeded to withdraw from the tourney. It then played a Grandmaster, and though it lost, it had at least a draw in the opinion of it's opponent, except that a bug in its evaluation algorith (since fixed) caused it to miss the correct line. Since then, DT has play both Karpov and Kasparov. Though it lost to each, Karpov had to work hard enough to win that he stormed out of the room afterwards, refusing to talk to press or spectators. Kasparov won more easily, and declared that computers would never be able to beat the likes of him. Most observers don't believe this, though, unless they have egos of like size. DT also commented on some of the games in the recent K-K match, finding some interesting lines that it claimed were a win for one side or the other (but which the players missed). Though there's technical debate about the correctness of DT's analysis, there's no doubt that it is now "approximately" a GM. I think it's rating is over 2500.
ntm1169@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil (Mott Given) (02/19/91)
From article <26892@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>, by turner@webb.psych.ufl.edu (Carl Turner):
> What is the current level of expertise in the best chess playing machines?
There is an excellent article on this in the current issue of "Popular
Science" magazine.
This issue also has a good article on the MIT work with robotic "insects."
--
Mott Given @ Defense Logistics Agency ,DSAC-TMP, P.O. Box 1605,
Bldg. 27 Section 1, Systems Automation Center, Columbus, OH 43216-5002
INTERNET: mgiven@dsac.dla.mil UUCP: ...osu-cis!dsac!mgiven
Phone: 614-238-9431 AUTOVON: 850-9431 FAX: 614-238-3214