Author: Bertil Eklund
Date: 15:47:45 03/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 29, 2001 at 18:13:02, Ralf Elvsén wrote: >On March 29, 2001 at 14:28:29, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On March 29, 2001 at 12:30:23, Ralf Elvsén wrote: >> > >>> >>>See my reply to Bertil below. The program might know it is losing >>>but is forced to play the move anyway. Not the kind of rules I like. >>> >>>Ralf >> >>In tournament time control it may play the same move because it even has not >>enough time to know that it is losing so it does not change the fact that the >>level of game is higher than tournament time control. >> >>You can also ask the same question about a regular tournament game. >>If you see at move 40 that you are losing and you have only few seconds to the >>time control. > >The argument is moot since that is a singular event. Besides, if a program >has as a part of its time management to not save up panic time before >the time control it should be punished for it, and it will be in a regular >game. The quality of time mangement for the two programs in Lykkes game >is short circuited by this kind of "time control". >> >>I will prefer to play a move that I have not enough time to analyze in this case > >What do you mean? Play the move you think looks bad but you don't know >how bad, or pick another move you don't know how good/bad it is? >If you mean the last alternative, the programs aren't even doing this >I guess. > >Let me try once more to explain what I mean: If Lykke for every 5th >move produced a random integer between 1 and 64 and from that got >a square and, if that square was occupied, removed that piece (not >a king), it would introduce a random element which has nothing to do >with chess. And it wouldn't favor one program over another. But to >me it would make the game less interesting. > >Now he is forcing the program to play a move when it is in a situation >where the move first in its movelist might be considered poor (or it is >just failing low). This is also a non-chess element in my opinion, since >chess is played with a time constraint, but also with a freedom to >allocate the time as you see fit, and I bet this is the assumption of >the programmer when he designes his search. > >So, it's a random element added to the game. And what are the benefits? >Just the small conveniance to be able to report one move EXACTLY every >2nd hour. > >Doesn't make sense to me. > >Ralf >> >>Uri Hi! And your suggestion is? If you have one computer and tries to play a sort of correspondence-game. Isn't it reasonable to decide a time for each move in example 2 or 24hours? Who should decide what is a fail low/high, maybee one program fails low two or three times in a row and the solution is say 100h away. This is the rules for this match and the result is nothing else then what I believe is an interesting game and probably of higher class then an ordinary tournament-game. Bertil
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.