Single Comment

Of course, I did not mean 'stupid looking up', like opening books and
endgame tables. I did not mean concrete knowledge. What I had in view are 
the established *chess laws*. For instance, in the opening you
must direct attention to the centre. There are two methods, either a
direct fight for the central squares, or an initial forfeiture followed by
an immediate undermining of the points of support. Flank operations must
not begin before the situation in the centre is clarified. In the endgame
the king must become active, and take heed of opposition, etc., etc. In my
own weak little DOS program ( http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/blindc.htm )
there is no book knowledge, either. But it tries to control the centre,
nevertheless. And it seems to play the openings rather well, without
opening book. 

Facts are that programmers are reluctant to teach the programs this kind
of knowledge. Instead they want to create as effective algorithms as
possible, so that the correct move is reached anyway. This creates a form
of chess that is lacking in variance. There are very many ways of handling
a position, provided that you follow the chess laws. If you don't follow
the chess laws, but only calculate, then the program will decide for only
one possibility. This is a faulty conclusion while there are other moves
that are just as good.

In this sense, I'm afraid, this project is similar to other chess
software solutions in that you put to much trust in the calculative
capability of the program. I don't see why abstract knowledge cannot be
combined with an AI approach.
/Mats