Author: Côme
Date: 23:53:43 09/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 29, 2000 at 21:45:49, Fernando Villegas wrote: >On September 29, 2000 at 16:01:40, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 29, 2000 at 15:52:10, Oliver Roese wrote: >> >>>On September 29, 2000 at 15:32:13, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On September 29, 2000 at 14:40:05, Fernando Villegas wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hi Bob >>>>>Well, let me give you a more detailed an idea of what I try to mean. >>>>>Suppose the program is already in a losing track. From then on what I say is >>>>>that he should try to put the opponent in the more tricky scenaries, not jus >>>>>looking for the best thoeretical move to do. How to do it: maximizing the chance >>>>>of the opponent to blunder. Example. Supose Crafty plays and has two moves and >>>>>the adversary has three moves in answer for each of those two moves. This, of >>>>>course, is just an example. >>>>>Now, supose move A has the following answers: move x, score 5+; move y, score >>>>>5,5+ and move z, score 5,9+ >>>>>Then you have move B with the following possible answers: move x1, with score >>>>>6,7+; move y2, with score 5,0+ and move z2, with score 1- >>>>> >>>>>Now, in the usual way, Crafty would choose move A, as much even the best >>>>>opponent move there is just 5,9+, but with move B the opponent has the chance to >>>>>play x1, with score 6,7+. >>>>>What I say is that in this field of bad scores, that kind of reasonning has not >>>>>too much sense as anyway, with 5.0+ or with 6,7+, anyway the program is lost. So >>>>>the idea of a swindle comes, as in human games: you choose move B because there >>>>>there is a chance the opponent will mistake and play z2, with score 1-. >>> >>>Realizing this sheeme would have a deep designimpact, since one would have to >>>look on a complete subtree of depth 1. >>> >>>> >>>>This is not so simple. >>>>The question is if there is a practical chance that the opponent is going to >>>>blunder. >>>> >>>>It is possible that move A is better from practical reasons because because >>>>after move A there is a practical chance that the opponent is going to blunder >>>>when after move B there is no practical chance that the opponent will miss the >>>>+6.7 move. >>>> >>> >>>Good point. >>>I think most of the time the "chance" would be a mere missing of a retake. >>> >>>>I think that it is not a good idea to invest time on swindle mode if you want to >>>>win humans in regular games and it is better to invest time in preventing a bad >>>>position in the first place. >>> >>>These goals are conceptionally not contradictoric. >> >>The contradiction is that if you waste a lot of time on one target you have not >>enough time to waste on another one. >> >>Another point is that if you improve your program to avoid bad positions in the >>first place you do not need the swindle mode because you do not get the >>positions when you need to use it. >> >>Uri > >Blas: >Facts are that, no matter how well a program play, one day or another it will be >in a lost position where its usual way of searching will be useless. To think >other way is believing you can get a program that never will be in so a lost >case, 5,0- or so. But if you think into it, every chess game that ends with a >win for one side neccesarily would get or will pas over that awful score to one >even wrost in some moment if the game is not stopped before. In fact, that is a >mathematical certaintity. And as much as I believe programs or humans, not >matter his strenght, will lose games at least once, I expect that at least once >Crafty will face a 5.0- score. Respect the fact of how good or bad, how simple >or complicated my idea is, I will live that to be judged by a real chess >programmers. Anyway, at my level of ideas, not being a chess programmer, I just >hope that what I say, simple or wrong as can be, could be useful even in an >indirect way to inspire somebody to do something positive. I do not try to >develop a full idea about this. Just hints that could or could not be useful. Of >course I undertand that your criticism aims to the same target. >Cheers >Fernando Hello ! Look at the lucky punch mode of Hossa. In a lost position Hossa don't care too much about material and attack the opponent king ! Best Regards Alexandre Côme
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.