Content uploaded by Manuel Cristóbal López-Michelone
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Manuel Cristóbal López-Michelone on Aug 10, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
CORRECTED PROOF
ICGA Journal -1 (2020) 1–12 1
DOI 10.3233/ICG-190141
IOS Press
A description language for chess
Manuel Cristóbal López-Michelone a,∗and Jorge L. Ortega-Arjona b
aPosgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de Computación, UNAM, México
bDepartamento de Matemáticas, Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM, México
Abstract. The game of chess involves patterns. In this article we develop a simple description language for chess positions as
patterns. It seems useful to catalogue similar positions in a generic form, based on common elements, in order to simplify the
search for chess positions. A simple chess pattern language is used here to develop a computer program to find similar chess
configurations. The aim is to avoid a commonly-used brute force approach. Further, this language could explain why some
typical maneuvers actually work in some patterns. This could also be a step forward to model and build chess programs,
which perform in a way closer to what a human being does.
1. INTRODUCTION
Chess is a game in which the configurations of the pieces between the two players frequently repeat.
These positions share common elements that we generically call patterns. Curiously, these elements
often occur in positions that appear to be different. Nevertheless, a closer analysis shows that there
are common elements that repeat. And just as these configurations are repeated, the way of dealing
with them is also repeated, which is interpreted as “making the right moves”.
Chess literature is crowded with books in which the authors provide tactical exercises on some
already-found chess patterns. These exercises hand over an advantage to the student-player sincee,
since without the need to make a complex analysis, the novice player can profit from the experienced
knowledge about the next movements that lead to a win or, at least, the moves that guarantee an
advantage.
Some studies have shown that the human brain – with constant study and practice – begins to generate
a mental catalogue of winning chess patterns. Normally these can sum up to around 50,000 positions
(Chase and Simon, 1973). However, no one knows how the brain recognises the chess patterns that
look different.
On the other hand, computers are not programmed to play chess with a pattern-oriented system; rather
they take advantage of their high-speed computations. Hence, this allows them to do position analysis
based on an evaluation function that reviews all possible variations that can follow, using a decision
tree approach. However, this does not take advantage of neither the nature of the game of chess, nor
of the patterns existing in the game, which have been known for many years.
Here, we propose a language for chess positions, which allows us to define positions as patterns
with common elements. This language attempts to show which are the movements of the pieces,
or the maneuvers, aiming to take advantage during the game. By making use of such a description
language, computer programs can be oriented so they do not require to analyse, withan enormous
*Corresponding author. E-mail: morsa@la-morsa.com.
1389-6911/20/$35.00 © 2020 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
CORRECTED PROOF
2M.C. López-Michelone and J.L. Ortega-Arjona / A description language for chess
depth, a decision tree when the pieces are in a known pattern. A pattern language should be flexible
enough to find common elements, even if positions seem to be very different.
2. THE DESCRIPTION OF CHESS PATTERNS
There are several ways of describing positions in chess. One of the most popular is called FEN
(Forsyth-Edwards Notation). Proposed in 1883, unlike notation systems for plays and games, FEN
is used to score a position on the chessboard. However, it defines where each piece is unambiguously
found on the chessboard.
A pattern description language requires more information about the position. It deals with the most
basic elements of chess: attack and defense. A chess player sees when a piece is attacked or when
a piece is defended. Nonetheless, it is as well necessary to know whether a piece is able to also
attack a set of squares that not necessarily contain any piece. In fact this is how players remember
positions. This has been proven, first by Adrian De Groot (de Groot, 1965), and later by H. Simon
and B. Chase (Simon and Chase, 1973), who concluded that the player encodes positions as a set
of relations between the pieces, instead of seeing positions as if they were photographs. De Groot
experimented with the world best players by proposing to them positions which lacked any chess
logic, for instance, game states highly unlikely and even illegal chess positions (pawns in the first
line, both kings in check, etcetera, in the Simon and Chase study). The great players experienced the
same difficulties, just like any chess beginner player to recall these positions. The Simon and Chase
analysis and De Groot’s study eliminate the myth that the chess player has a photographic memory of
the board and, on the other hand, it is confirmed that in some way the players remember the positions
as the relationships between the chess pieces.
A chess pattern is thus defined as a generalization of a relationship among pieces (attacks and de-
fenses), containing its essential characteristics. We think this is a novel part in the description of a
pattern. Let us consider only two types of relationships: attack and defense. An attack occurs when
a player’s piece assails a piece belonging to the opposite player; a defense is given when a piece of
one of the players covers another of the same side. Notice that these simple definitions are based on
relationships among rival pieces in the attack, and relationships among pieces of the same colour in
the defense. Further, the description of the chess patterns goes beyond simply seeing the positions of
the pieces in specific squares, by describing them also in terms of what pieces attack and/or defend
pieces and the various squares of interest. But this definition is static. A pattern also has to describe the
dynamic change in position, which occurs when describing the movement, or sequence of movements
that provide an advantage to a player.
In fact, we are interested in patterns that are known to give a certain advantage to one of the play-
ers. Chess literature is full of tactical exercises where chess combinations are found based in known
themes, like the greek gift or the Lasker–Bauer pattern, for example. Of course, a representation
language could search for other patterns and look for viability of some common characteristics and
features of chess positions (see Section 6below). Right now we are experimenting with patterns spec-
ified manually by human chess experts.
Consequently, this description language for chess patterns requires both factors:
1. the definition of features, which allows to find the elements common to the chess positions, so that
it is possible to compare apparently different positions sharing the common elements (and this is
when we talk about a defined pattern), and
CORRECTED PROOF
M.C. López-Michelone and J.L. Ortega-Arjona / A description language for chess 3
2. the sequence of movements (variations) that must be made to obtain an advantage in a given
position.
The position description language here generalises the patterns found in the different chess configura-
tions, thus providing a simple way of defining the common elements in the analysed positions. Once
these patterns are defined, it is possible to generate a list of them, which would issue a new approach
to chess programs and their way for assessing positions. This means that the programs could guide
the analysis of the movements in a way that may save time, either eliminating the moves that are not
promising, or reinforcing the analysis on movements that could be winning positions, or even acquire
a tangible advantage from the defined patterns.
3. RELATED WORK
The problem of describing the positions in terms of their characteristics has been analysed by many
other authors. For example, Zobrist and Carlson (Zobrist and Carlson, 1973) implemented a chess
program that played chess using a series of primitive patterns. The results were promising but for
some reason this research line was not continued. In 1990 Michael George wrote his thesis concerning
a program called MACH (George and Schaeffer, 1990), which used the idea of chunks, that is, blocks
defined on the board, which would allow to describe patterns in some way. Chrilly Donninger in
1996 (Donninger, 1996) discovered a way for implementing chess knowledge through a programming
language called CHE, which was used in his chess program, Nimzo.
But probably the key to this problem lies in the work of Adriaan de Groot, H. Simon and B. Chase,
who demonstrated that the chess players do not keep in their memory the most exact positions. Instead,
they use the relationships between the pieces on the board.
Paradise (Pattern recognition applied to directing search), a knowledge-based chess program written
by David Wilkins in 1979–80 (Wilkins, 1979), tried to use chess patterns to find the best moves in
tactically sharp middlegames. The software is written in MacLisp and the patterns are written as
production rules in an expert system approach, using a Production-Language (Wilkins, 1988). Even
the relative success of the idea lacks of a human and simple way to encode the chess patterns.
Finkelstein and Markovitch (Finkelstein and Markovitch, 1998) developed a description language
idea, which was used to learn to play selectively using only the patterns of movements in given
positions. This work is important because it tries to reduce the problem of dealing with chess positions
that are similar on the board.
Of course many commercial and open source chess database programs, like Chessbase or Jose, can
find similar positions using a very limited approach, constructing an exact chessboard position with
the pieces involved in the pattern to search. Other interesting approach is CQL – Chess Query Lan-
guage (Costeff, 2004), which tries to find similar chess positions using wildcards queries, but CQL
has serious limitations: a CQL user needs to formulate very precisely a query in a very complex query
language, and there is not a simple way to measure the similarities of different positions (Ganguly
et al., 2014).
Peter W. Frey (Frey, 1986), sought to categorise patterns into three types. This, however, does not
seem to have resonated with the programmer community as would have been expected, even from
Hans Berliner’s Hi-Tech “Oracle” approach (Berliner, 1999).
A novel viewpoint can be found in the work by Ganguly and Jones (Ganguly et al., 2014), using an
Information Retrieval (IR) approach used commonly to find similarities in image retrieval. In this
CORRECTED PROOF
4M.C. López-Michelone and J.L. Ortega-Arjona / A description language for chess
approach, each position in a chess game is encoded as a set of terms, where each term is used to rep-
resent different features of a chess position. Nevertheless, the chess pattern representation presented
is not very simple to build by humans.
Other works worth of mention are: “Templates in chess memory: A mechanism for recalling sev-
eral boards” (Gobet and Simon, 1996). This paper addresses empirically and theoretically a question
derived from the chunking theory of memory and it is suggested that chess players use long-term
memory retrieval structures or templates in addition to chunks, in short-term memory, to store infor-
mation quickly.
Gadwal et al. (Dinesh Gadwal and McCall, 1996) investigated a knowledge-based approach to build a
prototype chess tutor, which helps students to learn how to play specific bishop-pawn endgames. This
idea could be used in our chess representation language to even build some sort of high-level patterns
for tutoring tactical chess themes.
On the other hand, P. Ciancarini and M. Gaspari (Ciancarini and Gaspari, 1989) used a very interesting
approach to define some sort of interface for middlegame positions in chess through a knowledge
base. It looks as a complementary idea to our chess description language which builds a high-level
representation of chess positions as human players do. Nevertheless, their motivation is different to
our approach but it can be used to build a knowledge-base oriented specifically to chess patterns.
Finally, in Kaneko et al. (Tomoyuki Kaneko and Kawai, 2003), the authors address the problem to
find a way to automatic identification of patterns in evaluation functions. The approach in this case
comprises three steps: 1. Generation of logic formulae by using the specifications of a target game,
2. Translation of the formulae into patterns, and 3. Selection of a set of suitable patterns from those
generated. The authors work with the Othello game and their results are promising. Looks a very
interesting way to solve the problem of finding suitable patterns without the need of a human expert
in the game.
4. DEFINITION OF THE PATTERN LANGUAGE
The description language for chess positions is defined as a number of relationships between pieces,
separated by logical connectors, as follows:
relationship[connector]relationship[connector]...relationship [connector] advice
A relationship (attack or defense) between a piece A and a piece B is written as:
A(B)
where A and B are two chess pieces. In the case of an attack, it is clear that piece A is one colour
and piece B is the opposite one. If both are the same colour, then the pattern describes the defense
between both pieces. For example, the notation defined as B(ph7), indicates a white bishop1which
attacks a black pawn located in square h7.
Sometimes it is enough to define a piece attacking an empty square. For example, B(h7), tells us that
there is a white bishop attacking square h7.
1Uppercase letters represent the white pieces and lowercase ones represent the black pieces.
CORRECTED PROOF
M.C. López-Michelone and J.L. Ortega-Arjona / A description language for chess 5
Also, it is possible to describe where a piece is exactly ont the chessboard. For instance Bh7 simply
indicates that there is a white bishop in the square h7. Note that in the pattern language B(ph7),B(h7)
and Bh7 represent three different situations.
It is important to note that the description of chess patterns cannot be seen as positions of pieces in
specific squares necessarily, but what must be described is what pieces attack/defend the squares that
interest us.
In addition to describing the pattern that contains the fundamental elements of a position that can give
the advantage, one must describe at least the first move that must be made to achieve this.
4.1. Summary of the chess description language
The instructions of the language are:
•A(B) – Piece A attacks/defends Piece B.
•A(square) – Piece A attacks square.
•A square – Piece A at square.
•taboo(square) – Make a square unavailable to defender.
•action(chess movement) – The recommended move for the pattern.
•structw([list of pawns]) – Defines the structure of the white pawns ont the board.
•structb([list of pawns]) – Defines the structure of black pawns on the board.
•Logical connectors(“,”, “;”) – “,” is AND. “;” is OR. The word “AND” or “OR” may be used
instead.
•Single line comments can be made with the “//” delimiter, for example, //This is a comment.
Uppercase letters denote white pieces (K,Q,B,N,R,P) and lowercase letters denote black pieces
(k,q,b,n,r,p).
4.2. Examples of the chess description language
Generally speaking, a chess pattern described in this language is a set of pieces attacking or defending
each other, where one can find the position’s common elements. In some cases, all the elements can
be present, in other cases only a subset of the elements are present in the position. But in any case, the
pattern may show many similarities.
The following example seems to be a way to describe similar positions:
Pattern: Q(h5), B(ph7), B(pg7), R(f3), action(1. Bxh7+) (Figure 1)
Pattern: Q(h5), B(ph7), B(pg7), R(c3), action(1. Bxh7+) (Figure 2)
The patterns defined in the two previous positions are essentially the same. It is clear that the descrip-
tion of each chess position is not strictly the same for the two of them, but the similarities are evident
for any chess player. Therefore, it must be pointed out that our description language that can (or at
least may attempt to) deal with positions that are not necessarily the same, and still very similar.
Our approach is to find a way to characterise chess positions as patterns. According to Peter W.
Frey (Frey, 1986), three types of sets are proposed: Typ e - A, where the characteristics of the pattern
are completely fulfilled; Type- B , where the characteristics sought are usually present, but not always
present; and finally Type - C , whose characteristics are occasionally present. This, in turn, allows chess
CORRECTED PROOF
6M.C. López-Michelone and J.L. Ortega-Arjona / A description language for chess
Fig. 1. Lasker–Bauer, Amsterdam 1889.
Fig. 2. Miles, A. – Browne, W., Luzern (ol) 1982.
programs to be designed as in the case of Nimzo (Donninger, 1996)orHi-Tech program (Berliner,
1999), in such a manner that the definition of the chess knowledge can change the behaviour of the
chess program.
The language also must deal with prohibited squares. For instance, in the last match of the World
Championship (New York 2016), Carlsen found a winning combination in the following position:
Pattern: Q(h6), Rc8, R(f7), Ph5, kh7, pg7, taboo(g6), action(1. Qh6+) (Figure 3)
In this pattern, taboo(g6) means that square g6 is not available to the defender (meaning in this
particular case, the king is not allowed to move to g6).
But this same pattern already appeared in Popov–Novopashin, USSR Championship 1979:
Pattern: Q(h6), Rf8, R(b7), Ph4, kh7, pg7, taboo(g6), action(1. Qh6+) (Figure 4)
CORRECTED PROOF
M.C. López-Michelone and J.L. Ortega-Arjona / A description language for chess 7
Fig. 3. Carlsen, M. – Karjakin, S., World Chess Championship 2016.
Fig. 4. Popov, N. – Novopashin, A., URS (ch) 1979.
Notice here the black king cannot go to g6 because of his own pawn. This is another way to make
square g6 unavailable to Black at the definition stage of the pattern.
4.3. Logical connectors
A pattern consists of a sequence of symbols defining the chess pieces in certain squares (or attacking
other pieces) connected logically. The pattern can be considered as a set of statements connected by
the AND logic connector (this is the default condition). We can also use the OR connector, which is
used when a chess piece in the pattern, could be in that square or in another one. In the best Prolog
language tradition, we use the “,” symbol for the AND and “;” for OR, but it can be written simply
“AND” or “OR”.
CORRECTED PROOF
8M.C. López-Michelone and J.L. Ortega-Arjona / A description language for chess
4.4. Positional patterns
A position description language should deal not only with tactical elements. It should have the capabil-
ity to define positional patterns. Most of these patterns depend on the pawn structure for both players.
By defining structw([list of pawns]) for white and structb([list of pawns]) for black, and the advice
of what to do, the pattern can be constructed. Russian chess literature called them priyomes.2
Positional patterns, aka priyomes, are more difficult to define because there is generally no straight-
forward method to get the advantage. But, in some situations, there is a way to define a pattern.
A very popular priyome is the explotation of a weak square, for example c6. In Botvinnik–Donner,
Amsterdam 1963 (see next diagram), the c6 square is weak. The steps to get the advantage are:
(a) trade light-square bishops, (b) secure c6 with b4–b5, and (c) occupy the hole with a knight.
The chess pattern language describes this with pawns structures for both players:
structw(a3, b4, e2, f2, g3, h2), structb(a7, b6, e6, f7, g7, h7), (Figure 5)
with the advice: action(get c6 for white), using the steps mentioned above.3
Fig. 5. Botvinnik, M. – Donner, J., Amsterdam 1963.
A second example of the same pattern: In Aronian–Carlsen, Elista 2007:
structw(a3, b4, e3, f2, g2, h2), structb(a7, b6, e6, f7, g7, h6), (Figure 6)
with the advice: action(get c6 for white).4
2In chess literature players use “priyomes”, a Russian noun that is used directly and generically in English, to represent
some sort of typical maneuver or technique in chess (i.e. a pattern). For example, a typical defensive technique (“priem”) in
rook endings is to use the king to attack the opponent’s pawns. The Russian word “priem” is used more generally to refer
to typical maneuvers used in positions with certain pawn structure or other defining characteristics. (http://chess-training.
blogspot.mx/2016/05/priyomes.html).
3Botvinnik accomplish the plan with: 14. Nd4 Bxg2 15. Kxg2 Qc7 16. Qb3 Rfc8 17. Rfc1 Qb7+18. Qf3 Nd5 19. e4
N5f6 20. b5 a6 21. Nc6 and white is much better.
4Aronian followed the typical steps: 16. Ba6 Bxa6 17. Qxa6 Rxc1+18. Rxc1 Nb8 19. Qc4 Rd8 20. h3 Ne8 21. b5! and
eventually white won the game.
CORRECTED PROOF
M.C. López-Michelone and J.L. Ortega-Arjona / A description language for chess 9
Fig. 6. Aronian, L. – Carlsen, M., Elista (Candidates) 2007.
The pawn structures shown for each player are not exactly the same, but the weakness of the “c6”
square is obvious for a chess expert, and the priyome is part of what chess masters know about weak
squares in chess pawn structures. We are not dealing in this case with an automatic recognition of
chess patterns. Again, pawn structures do not have to be exact, but just similar in some key aspects.5
So positional patterns are chess positions without a tactical conclusion.
5. EXPERIMENTAL DATA AND ANALYSIS
We built a computer program to find chess patterns using our chess description language. We use the
Megabase 2018 from Chessbase in Portable Game Notation (PGN) format,6a commercial collection
of chess games (7,187,893 games, years 1475 to 2017), and, as an example, we search for the greek
gift pattern (for White), defined as kg8, pf7, pg7, B(ph7), Nf3, Qd1, Pe5.
We find 1194 games within the greek gift:
1. 99 games finish in a draw (8 percent). We are going to dismiss these games because are equal for
both, Black and White.
2. White win in 907 games (76 percent)
3. Black win in 188 games (16 percent)
4. Not all games are from rated chess players. In 700 rated games, White has 1971 (average) Elo
points7with a performance of 2097 Elo points. This means, in an average of 1971 Elo points,
White have 126 Elo points above the expectancy of the results, showing the effectiveness of the
greek gift.
5. On the other hand, in 840 rated games, Black has 1823 (average) Elo points with a performance of
1756 Elo points, meaning a bad performance for Black, below of the expectancy of the results.
5In the example, the key aspect is the weak square c6.
6http://www.saremba.de/chessgml/standards/pgn/pgn-complete.htm
7Elo is a numerical value of the chess level of a player. A beginner has 1000 Elo points and the World Champion usually
is around 2850 Elo points. See http://gobase.org/studying/articles/elo/.
CORRECTED PROOF
10 M.C. López-Michelone and J.L. Ortega-Arjona / A description language for chess
Fig. 7. The pattern’s chess program.
A first conclusion one gets at is the effectiveness of the greek-gift pattern, shown in 76 percent of the
games in the sample. This means we can guide the search of the best moves using the chess pattern
found instead of analysing all the possible moves in a specific position.
Our experimental application can find any pattern defined in our chess description language. The
patterns can be written using any ASCII text editor. The application works in the Microsoft Windows
UI.8The program is CPU intensive because it has to check every position in every game and compare
it against the pattern defined by the user.
We tested our program on two computers. The first one is an AMD FX(tm)-8350 Eight-Core proces-
sor, running at 4.0 Ghz, with 4 GBytes of RAM using Windows 7 Pro (64 bits); and a second computer
with an AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 Six-Core Processor (64 bits), at 3.20 GHz with 16 GBytes of RAM,
using 64 bit Windows 10 Pro version. In the fastest version (Windows 10), the software can find a
pattern (with some optimisations done), analysing all the positions generated in a game and com-
paring with the target pattern, in around one second per game. Of course, the software needs more
optimisations. Right now we are not using any sort of database, for the PGN games, that could make
the search faster. Our prototype software is just a proof of concept.
8Tested on Windows 7 and Windows 10 without trouble.
CORRECTED PROOF
M.C. López-Michelone and J.L. Ortega-Arjona / A description language for chess 11
In a scenario of a chess program searching for patterns, one second to find if a pattern exists in a game
is very slow, but the imaginary chess program would be working using tested patterns (defined, in
principle, by chess masters) and it could be embedded in the evaluation function in some way, in an
attempt to speed the calculations.
6. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
A language for describing patterns of chess positions may be an interesting approach to try to solve
the problem of the growth of the tree of variations to be analysed. A language of this nature can
optimize the search of the best moves without having to check many variations that are not useful. In
fact this is the way chess masters play.
By means of this position description language, an important number of known chess patterns can be
build to make a catalogue of them, which may lead to the classification of many positions in chess
which will not require an analysis of brute force. One effort to clasify middlegame patterns can be
found in the Encyclopedia of Chess Combinations (by Chess Informant), but the classification of
middlegame tactical themes is very ambiguous.9
This is a first step, although it is clear that we still have to analyse the problems of similarity and how
far a pattern can appear in a given position and how similar it is to the configuration we are looking
at. This approach has not been solved at this time, and it could be part of future work on the subject.
The proposed language allows to start with description patterns that are very well-known in chess
literature in which we know how to solve them. Nonetheless, a new approach could be to build a
neural network to try to find other patterns or even different sequences of moves to solve the found
patterns, that is, to get the advantage in the game. This could also be part of future work in the subject.
Automatic recognition of chess patterns could be a novel approach, and probably the best tool avail-
able could be some sort of neural network. In our approach, we have to define the chess patterns
drawing from the expertise of chess masters.
Also, in the present form, the user has to define patterns for White or Black pieces separately, but we
have plans to add some syntactic constructions to search indistinctly the same pattern for White and
Black. This will be part also of the representation language.
REFERENCES
Berliner, H. (1999). The System. Gambit Books.
Chase, W. & Simon, H. (1973). The mind’s eye in chess. In Visual Information Processing (pp. 215–
281). doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-170150-5.50011-1.
Ciancarini, P. & Gaspari, M. (1989). A knowledge based system and a development interface for the
middle game in chess. In Advances in Computer Chess (Vol. 5).
Costeff, G. (2004). The chess query language: CQL. ICGA Journal,27(4), 217–225. doi:10.3233/
ICG-2004-27404.
de Groot, A. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. Mounton.
9https://sahovski.com/Encyclopedia-of-Chess-Combinations-5th-edition- p92256834
CORRECTED PROOF
12 M.C. López-Michelone and J.L. Ortega-Arjona / A description language for chess
Dinesh Gadwal, J.E.G. & McCall, G.I. (1996). Tutoring bishop-pawn endgames: An experiment in
using knowledge-based chess as a domain for intelligent tutoring. Applied Intelligence,3, 207–224.
Donninger, C. (1996). CHE: A graphical language for expressing chess knowledge. ICCA Journal,
19(4), 234–241.
Finkelstein, L. & Markovitch, S. (1998). Learning to play chess selectively by acquiring move pat-
terns. ICCA Journal,21(2), 100–119.
Frey, P.W. (1986). Fuzzy production rules in chess. ICCA Journal,9(4), 175–179.
Ganguly, D., Leveling, J. & Jones, G.J. (2014). Retrieval of similar chess positions. In Proceedings of
the 37th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval
(pp. 687–696).
George, M. & Schaeffer, J. (1990). Chunking for experience. ICCA Journal,13, 123–132.
Gobet, F. & Simon, H.A.R. (1996). Templates in chess memory: A mechanism for recalling several
boards. Cognitive Psychology,31, 1–40. doi:10.1006/cogp.1996.0011.
Simon, H. & Chase, B. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology,4, 55–81. doi:10.1016/
0010-0285(73)90004-2.
Tomoyuki Kaneko, K.Y. & Kawai, S. (2003). Automated identification of patterns in evaluation func-
tions. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology,135, 279–298.
Wilkins, D. (1979). Using patterns and plans to solve problems and control search. PhD thesis, Com-
puter Science Dept, Stanford University, AI Lab Memo AIM-329.
Wilkins, D. (1988). Using patterns and plans in chess. In Computer Chess Compendium (pp. 233–
257). doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-1968-0_23.
Zobrist, A. & Carlson, F. Jr. (1973). An advice-taking chess computer. Scientific American,228(6),
92–105. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0673-92.
