Advertisement

Case-based evaluation in computer chess

  • Yaakov Kerner
Applications
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 984)

Abstract

Current computer-chess programs achieve outstanding results in chess playing. However, there is a deficiency of evaluative comments on chess positions. In this paper, we propose a case-based model that supplies a comprehensive positional analysis for any given position. This analysis contains evaluative comments for the most significant basic features found in the position and a general evaluation for the entire position. The analysis of the entire position is presented by an appropriate Multiple explanation Pattern (MXP), while the analysis of each chosen feature is presented by a suitable eXplanation Pattern (XP). The proposed analysis can improve weak and intermediate players' play in general and their understanding, evaluating and planning abilities in particular. This model is part of an intelligent educational chess system which is under development. At present, our model deals only with a static evaluation of chess positions; addition of searching and playing modules remains for future work.

Keywords

case-based reasoning computer chess explanation patterns 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ashley, K. D. & Rissland, E. L. (1987). Compare and Contrast, A Test of Expertise. In Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 273–278). Los Altos: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  2. Averbakh, Y. (ed.) (1986). Comprehensive Chess Endings (a five-volume set). Translated by Neat, K. P. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Berliner, H. J. & Ackley, D. H. (1982). The QBKG System: Generating Explanations from a Non-Discrete Knowledge Representation. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 213–216). AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  4. Botvinnik, M. M. (1984). Computers in Chess: Solving Inexact Search Problems. Translated by Brown A. A. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. Bradtke, S. & Lehnert, W. G. (1988). Some Experiments With Case-Based Search. In Proceedings of the Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 133–138). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  6. Branting, L. K. (1991). Reasoning with Portions of Precedents. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on AI and Law (pp. 145–154). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  7. Callan, J. P., Fawcett, T. E. & Rissland, E. L. (1991). Adaptive Case-Based Reasoning. In Proceedings of a Workshop on CBR (pp. 179–190). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
  8. de Groot, A. D. (1965). Thought and Choice. Mouton, The Hague.Google Scholar
  9. Epstein, S. (1989). The Intelligent Novice — Learning to Play Better. In D. N. L. Levy & D. F. Beal (Eds.), Heuristic Programming in Artificial Intelligence — The First Computer Olympiad. Ellis Horwood.Google Scholar
  10. Fine, R. (1952). The Middle Game in Chess. New York: David McKay Company.Google Scholar
  11. Kass, A. M. (1990). Developing Creative Hypotheses by Adapting Explanations. Technical Report #6, p. 9. Institute for the Learning Sciences, Northwestern University, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  12. Kolodner, J. L. (1981). Organization and Retrieval in a Conceptual Memory for Events or Con54, Where are You? In Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 227–233). Los Altos: William Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  13. Kolodner, J. L. (1988). Retrieving Events from a Case Memory: A Parallel Implementation. In Proceedings of a Workshop on CBR (pp. 233–249). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
  14. Koton, P. (1988). Reasoning about Evidence in Causal Explanations. In Proceedings of a Workshop on CBR (pp. 260–270). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
  15. Kotov, A. (1978). Play Like a Grandmaster. Translated by Cafferty, B. London: B. T. Batsford Ltd.Google Scholar
  16. Levinson, R. & Snyder, R. (1991). Adaptive Pattern-Oriented Chess. In Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 601–606). Menlo Park: AAAI Press/The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Levinson, R. (1994). Morph II: A Universal Agent: Progress Report and Proposal. Technical Report UCSC-CRL-94-22, University of California Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
  18. Michie, D. (1981). A Theory of Evaluative Comments in Chess with a Note on Minimaxing. The Computer Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3, 278–286.Google Scholar
  19. Nimzowitsch, A. (1930). My System — A Chess Treatise. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar
  20. Pachman, L. (1973). Attack and Defence in Modern Chess Tactics. Translated by Clarke P. H. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul LTD.Google Scholar
  21. Pachman, L. (1976). Complete Chess Strategy (Volumes 1 & 2). Translated by Littlewood J. London: B. T. Batsford Ltd.Google Scholar
  22. Pell, B. (1994). A Strategic Metagame Player for General Chess-Like Game. In Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1378–1385). Seattle: AAAI Press/The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Redmond, M. (1990). Distributed Cases for Case-Based Reasoning: Facilitating Use of Multiple Cases. In Proceedings of the Eight National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 304–309). Menlo Park: AAAI Press/The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Samuel, A. L. (1967). Some Studies in Machine Learning Using the Game of Checkers II-Recent Progress, IBM Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 11, No. 6, 601–617.Google Scholar
  25. Schank, R.C. (ed.) (1986). Explanation Patterns: Understanding Mechanically and Creatively. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Schild, U. J. & Kerner, Y. (1993). Multiple Explanation Patterns. In Proceedings of the First European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning, Vol. II (pp. 379–384). Kaiserslautern: Germany. Extended paper in Wess, S.; Althoff, K-D.; and Richter, M. M. (Eds.), Topics in Case-Based Reasoning — EWCBR'93, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 837 (pp. 353–364). Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  27. Shannon, C. E. (1950). Programming a Computer for Playing Chess. Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 41(7), 256–277.Google Scholar
  28. Shereshevsky M. I., (1985). Endgame Strategy. Translated by Neat, K. P. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  29. Simon, H. A. (1974). How Big is a Chunk? Science No. 183, 482–488.Google Scholar
  30. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of Similarity, Psychological Review, 84, 4, 327–352.Google Scholar
  31. Zobrist, A. L. (1970). Technical Report #88. Computer Science Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yaakov Kerner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceBar-Ilan UniversityRamat-GanIsrael

Personalised recommendations