Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 22:33:33 12/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 07, 1999 at 00:59:07, Peter Kappler wrote: >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...) It wouldn't kick in often enough at 25 plies, I would imagine. Remember, 10 plies "played". if the computer is calculating about 8 or plies ahead at that point, 8 + 10 is an 18 ply "swath" that it has considered without finding a way to make progress. With it set at 25 plies, random fluctuations of the eval would effectively cancel the feature. The computer may momentarily fool itself about the eval and the fluctuation would be too big. In any event, of course you make the feature adjustable, so this really is not that big an issue. > > >>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 Yes. It makes more sense to play computers with an increment, but they do anyway and human nature being what it is, humans will complain despite their decision to play without the increment. They will enjoy the program more with the feature, than without. That's the bottom line. This is basically an adjustment for their lack of rationality. Why fight it? >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.