Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 21:59:07 12/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 07, 1999 at 00:01:08, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On ICC, I often see computers winning games against strong players by >"unfriendly" means. Consider what happens when the position is dead drawn, but >the computer player does not realize this and makes an unending series of >aimless moves that drains the human opponent of time on his clock. It isn't any >secret that computers have "faster reflexes". This is boring and inflates the >apparent strength of the program. > >I propose that computer programs should offer/accept draws when the following >conditions hold: > >1) There have been no pawn moves or captures played by > either side over the past 10 ply played. Of course > the 50 move rule counter is perfect for this. > >2) The evaluation has remained relatively stable over > this period of moves. Fluctuating within a _very_ > small range. > >Notice the computer player could possibly offer/accept a draw when it is >material up. It is also possible that the position could be winning for the >computer, but I think that's OK, since the computer has demonstated an inability >to find the win. When a position is a winning one, the score should degenerate >in favor of the side that has the winning position. I know this is not perfect, >but restricting this to blitz or bullet would >keep the chess "friendly" and entertaining. > This seems reasonable, but I'd want the threshold to be much higher -- at least 25 plies. (The 10 ply scenario you described above could happen in just about any middlegame...) >A second proposal I have to make the chess more "friendly", is to keep the >computer from forcing wins from sheer speed of play. Force the computer to >consume a little more time per move so that it does not win on time just by >virtue of its inhuman speed. You can have this trigger a draw offer when it gets >low on time, _then_ if it is refused, you can have the computer take the gloves >off and play at full speed. > Why not just play with time increments? Even a one second increment per move is enough. A computer account that won't play blitz with increments against humans is clearly just hunting for rating points. --Peter >The "drawback" to all this is that computers employing the above 2 ideas will >wind up with lower ratings, but I think those ratings will then reflect their >strength due to chessic reasons rather than non-chessic ones. Computer chess >programers egos will take a hit when their programs ICC rating goes down, but >they will gain in the long run by virtue of having produced a more enjoyable >program that is bound to thereby be more popular. In a serious competitive >setting or against another computer, these "features" should be turned off of >course. Perhaps this could be tested on ICC with unrated games to see what the >impact would be on playing strength.
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.