Abstract
Classical game theory partitions the set of legal chess positions into three evaluative categories: won, drawn and lost. Yet chess commentators employ a much larger repertoire of evaluative terms than this, distinguishing (for example) a ‘drawn’ from a ‘balanced’ position, a ‘decisive’ from a’ slight’ advantage, an ‘inaccuracy’ from a ‘mistake’ and a ‘mistake’ from a ‘blunder’. As an extension of the classical theory, a model of fallible play is developed. Using this, an additional quantity can in principle be associated with each position, so that we have not only its ‘game-theoretic value’ but also its ‘expected utility’. A function of these two variables can be found which yields explications for many evaluative terms used by chess commentators. The same model can be used as the basis of computer play. It is shown to be easier to justify, and to adjust to realistic situations, than the minimax model on which state of the art chess programs are based.
First published in The Computer Journal, volume 24, number 3, 1981, pp. 278-286. Copyright Heyden & Son Ltd., 1981. Reprinted by permission of John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1988 David Levy
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Michie, D. (1988). A Theory of Evaluative Comments in Chess with a Note on Minimaxing. In: Levy, D. (eds) Computer Chess Compendium. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-1968-0_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-1968-0_16
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-1970-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-1968-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive