Skip to main content
Log in

Tutoring bishop-pawn endgames: An experiment in using knowledge-based chess as a domain for intelligent tutoring

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most research in computer chess has focused on creating an excellent chess player, with relatively little concern given to modeling how humans play chess. The research reported in this article is aimed at investigating knowledge-based chess in the context of building a prototype chess tutor, UMRAO, which helps students learn how to play bishop-pawn endgames. In tutoring it is essential to take a knowledge-based approach, since students must learn how to manipulate strategic concepts, not how to carry out large-scale lookahead searches.

UMRAO uses an extension of Michie's advice language to represent expert and novice chess plans. For any given endgame, the system is able to compile the plans into a strategy graph, which elaborates strategies (both well formed and ill formed) that students might use as they solve the endgame problem. A strategy graph can be compiled “off-line,” where real-time performance is not important. Later, during tutoring, the strategy graph can be accessed quickly in order to understand a student's moves in terms of his or her strategies. With such understanding, UMRAO is able to provide appropriate knowledge-based feedback to the student. Anderson et al. have called this tutoring paradigm “model tracing,” but in the chess domain model tracing can be used without the need for immediate feedback that Anderson has required in his more complex abstract problem-solving domains. The chess domain thus allows experimentation with a variety of tutoring styles that range from immediate feedback to optional feedback, from strict tutor control of the feedback to student initiative in the choice of feedback. This points out UMRAO's most promising contribution: re-establishing chess as a vehicle for research in other areas of artificial intelligence, in this case intelligent tutoring systems. UMRAO also makes technical contributions to knowledge-based chess and to intelligent tutoring as well.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. H. Berliner and M. Campbell, “Using chunking to solve chess pawn endgames,”Artif. Intell., vol. 23, pp. 97–120, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  2. D. Michie, “A theory of advice,” inMachine Intelligence, edited by T. Elcock and D. Michie, Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, 30–59, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J. Pitrat, “A chess combination program which uses plans,”Artif. Intell., vol. 8, pp. 275–321, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  4. D.E. Wilkins, “Using patterns and plans in chess,”Artif. Intell., vol. 14, pp. 165–203, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  5. J. Schaeffer, “Long-range planning in computer chess,”Proc. 1983 Annu. Conf. ACM, 1983, pp. 170–179.

  6. R. Reddy, “Foundations and grand challenges of artificial intelligence,”Al Magazine, vol. 9., no. 4, pp. 9–21, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  7. N. Charness, “Expertise in chess and bridge,” inComplex Information Processing: The Impact of H. A. Simon, edited by D. Klahr and K. Kotovsky, Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 183–208, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  8. H. Simon and Chase, “Skill in chess,”Am. Sci., vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 394–403, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Y. Averbach,Comprehensive Chess Endings, Vol. 1, Academic Press: New York, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  10. I. Bratko, “Knowledge-based problem solving in AL3,” inMachine Intelligence, Vol. 10, edited by D. Michie and J.H. Pao, Ellis Horwood: Chichester, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  11. I. Bratko and T. Niblett, “Conjectures and refutations in a framework for chess endgame knowledge,” inExpert Systems in the Micro-Electronic Age, edited by D. Michie, Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  12. R. Burton and J.S. Brown, “An investigation of computer coaching for informal learning activities,” inIntelligent Tutoring Systems, edited by D. Sleeman and J.S. Brown, Academic Press: New York, pp. 79–98, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  13. W.L. Johnson and E.M. Soloway, “PROUST: Knowledge-based program debugging,”Proc. Seventh Int. Software Eng. Conf., Orlando, FL, 1984, pp. 369–380.

  14. G.I. McCalla, J.E. Greer, and the SCENT Research Team, “Intelligent advising in problem solving domains: the SCENT-3 architecture,”Int. Conf. Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Montreal, 1988, pp. 124–131.

  15. J.R. Anderson, F. Boyle, A. Corbett, and M. Lewis, “Cognitive modeling and intelligent tutoring,”Artif. Intell., vol. 42, pp. 7–49, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  16. D. Gadwal, “UMRAO: A chess endgame tutor,” M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Computational Science, University of Saskatchewan, 1990.

  17. G.I. McCalla, J.E. Greer, B. Barrie, and P. Pospisil, “Granularity hierarchies,”Int. J. Comput. Math., Special Issue on Semantic Networks, vol. 23, pp. 363–375, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  18. G.I. McCalla, J.E. Greer, and R. Coulman, “Enhancing the robustness of model-based recognition,”Third International Workshop on User Modelling, Germany, pp. 240–248, 1992.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gadwal, D., Greer, J.E. & McCalla, G.I. Tutoring bishop-pawn endgames: An experiment in using knowledge-based chess as a domain for intelligent tutoring. Appl Intell 3, 207–224 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00871938

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00871938

Key words

Navigation