Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 04:27:33 12/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 2003 at 05:43:27, Harald Lüßen wrote: >On December 13, 2003 at 03:32:01, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>On December 12, 2003 at 16:59:17, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >> >>>>My point is: >>>> >>>>1. Since the programs now are much stronger than 20 years ago, why not change >>>>the rule about resigning and let them resing when they are down -10? >>>>2. It is true that a bug may help the program which is lost, but which are the >>>>chances today? Is it correct to say 1 every 1000? If this is true, why not >>>>concentrate to improve their play on the first part of the game rather then >>>>hoping to be extremely lucky in the endgame? >>> >> >>Hi, >> >>first of all thank for the friendly discussion. I undestand your point of view >>and I do respect it as I do with everybody points of view. >>Still I do not agree with you...see below. >> >>>The point is, even if the eval is -10, I am under no obligation to resign. >> >>Correct. >>I am asking to change the rule to force a program to resign when the score goes >>down to -10 (a mean more or less a queen and 2 rooks down, to summarize). >>Why I am asking to change this? >>Because I think we better try to get closer to mid/strong players and they do >>resign when the disadvantage is too high. >>At the lowest national category, so I am not talking at master level, they do >>resign if they are a piece down, not to talk about a rook down, so why not make >>the programs get closer to that? >>-10 is an intermediate level between what is today and what the average chess >>players do to avoid annoying the people watching these games. >>It is an idea and a proposal. I think this will improve the view chess players >>have of computer chess programs. >>Of course the programmers can say no, but before doing that think about why you >>are writing a chess program. Do you do it only for fun or you would like more >>people to get interested on this field and so increase possibly the custormers? Hi, > >I have a few arguments against changing the rules: > >Sometimes I like t see a very strong defense in lost positions. Well, if you are a queen or 2 rooks down, I think there is no strong defence possible. >Sometimes I like to see the shortest way to win. OK. >As a weak player I can follow and understand some won endgames >better than some parts of the middlegame. Perhaps I learn to win. Well, if you do not know how to win with and advantage of a queen or 2 rooks, you can see the computer displayed analyzed moves. This is easy to learn in books as well. Maybe in the commercial version it could be set as an option. >I won't like to see a human tournament, where the Rules say: >If someone is a queen down he is considered lost an loses >the game. There is no rule that states this. It is a sport way to do it. Also since a tournament is long, way waste time and energy in something hopeless? The correct evaluation is important and is important in the life as well. This is why I consider chess an important game. >It could have been a sacrifice. Or it could have been >an error of the stronger player and he can win anyway. Ok, this is possible, but it is also possible that if you leave the game is because you cannot see such possibility, so at the end you would never have it... >That >is interesting and surely will be discussed later in chess >magazines. The same with computers. > >How do you mesure the positional value and decide it is +-10? The program loosing should be set to leave on that value. This is already made in the commercial versions. Since some programmers could be cheating, all programs should be tested with a secret "position" and verify they can disply -10 or lower values to avoid cheating... If they are found to be cheating they would be disqualified unless the programmer can demostrate it is a specific bug in that position. Since I am Italian, I would not cheat, but other people may do... > >As a chess programmer I would build a program that always says >it ist +1 in the interface. Internally it may have other values. >Or I always say I am on top +10 and win immediately. The opponent cannot claim a win, only the looser should claim a defeat... > >If you count the material value on the board with standard >piece values I build a program that tries to capture pieces >as if there is no tomorrow. It will win the tournament even >if it is lost in a complete other game called chess that has >similar move rules. The score should be a sum of material and positional values, as it is now. All programs do that to select a move to play... > >Harald Sandro
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.