Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:04:29 12/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 07, 1999 at 16:54:15, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On December 07, 1999 at 14:22:19, Robert Hyatt 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. >> >>This is total nonsense. I have seen _many_ games where no pawn move or >>capture was played over a 5 move (10 ply) stretch. This has _nothing_ to >>do with the game called "chess". > >Please explain why you consider this to be total nonsense. It is clear that this >is reliable indicator of whether substantive change has taken place on the >chessboard. > Please read the second sentence in the above paragraph. I don't see how that can be misunderstood... >> >>Crafty will offer a draw when the eval says "Drawscore" for N consecutive >>moves, where N varies depending on the opponent. For GM players I believe it >>is 3 consecutive moves. For IMs maybe 5. >> >> >> >> >>> >>>2) The evaluation has remained relatively stable over >>> this period of moves. Fluctuating within a _very_ >>> small range. >> >>Again this won't work. Some programs vary a little, and some vary a >>lot... so eval change means little in this context... > >It is meaningful, because no pawn moves or exchanges have taken place _and_ the >program has not found any way to improve its position. The combination of the >above 2 conditions detect when the program is just churning its pieces around >uselessly. Programs do that with blocked position draws or when they maintain >seemingly favorable positions by avoiding exchanges that the EGTB indicates >would produce a drawn position. Computers win a lot of these positions on time, >because the human player can't move instantly like the computer can. Unfriendly >chess. > It isn't reasonable for the reason I gave. A program might well have 4 different possiblities for making progress. Three of the four might fail and turn into draws... the fourth might win. I would hardly give up after my first attempt. I have watched GM players try 3-4 different approaches to a particular endgame before they figure out how to win it... because the other approaches lead to drawish position and they backtrack. >> >> >> >> >>> >>>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. >> >> >>A computer demonstrates its inability to win by reaching a dead drawn position >>by the 50-move rule or by repetition, or by insufficient material. A program >>might try 2-3 different 'plans' before it finds one that doesn't lead to a >>forced draw. >> > >You can increase the threshold number of ply to 20 if you want. It would be >adjustable. There are a lot of dead drawn positions that the computer does not >detect. What I propose is an attempt to remedy that. Please note that I only >propose this for those contexts where it is desirable to keep the chess friendly >and not when there is something substantive at stake like in a tournament. I >thought I made this clear. What do you have that is better in such cases? It >doesn't seem like you really read my post carefully. It is an adjustable feature >that can also simply be turned off and should be when playing another computer >or in a tournament. What could be wrong with that? The human can already control this. If he wants to play a relaxing game, he plays with increment. If he wants to play a sharp time-controlled game, he plays a zero-inc game. It is all up to the human. Some computers (mine at least) will offer/accept draws when it is reasonable, if it doesn't think it has any sort of winning chance at all). > >> >> >> >> >>> >>>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. >> >>This is already done. It is called "playing with increment". If a human >>chooses a zero increment game, then he has to play to win or draw within >>that time limit. That is _his_/_her_ choice, and has nothing to do with the >>computer. I see no reason for the computer to play within that clock time >>limit but let the human off if he gets low on time. > >Read my response to this that I wrote to Kappler's post in this thread. > >> >>If the human insists on playing zero-inc games, then as the saying goes "he who >>lives by the sword, dies by the sword." >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>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. >> >> >>I have been playing chess for a _long_ time. I have won and lost games on >>time. I consider the 'clock' to be a "chessic reason" for losing a game. It >>is part of the game, included in the rules... > >I have also played chess for a _long_ time and it has always been considered bad >etiquette to try to win dead drawn positions on time in skittles. Maybe you play >in a "tougher" neighborhood than I do. You just play in a very protected environment. I have seen this happen at USCF open events (blitz tournament). At a FIDE event. Even at long time controls with a mad scramble at the end... again, avoid it by playing with increment... not by expecting your opponent to let you off the hook after you choose a time control you can't live with...
This page took 0.01 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.