Author: John Coffey
Date: 16:34:02 07/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 2000 at 14:45:01, KarinsDad wrote: >On July 24, 2000 at 14:23:19, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On July 24, 2000 at 13:30:06, Jari Huikari wrote: >> >>>On July 24, 2000 at 13:01:36, John Coffey wrote: >>> >>>>Only slightly related to the GUI is having a range of abilities from beginner >>>>up to the top level that can be fine tuned. >>> >>>>I tried it on Chessmaster 6000, all the levels 1600 and below were dropping >>>>pieces, and the next level up was smashing me at speed chess (my quick rating >>>>is 1978.) >>> >>>I have thought about how this could be done. One idea that came into my >>>mind was simply to put some delay routine into search to make it slower >>>and thus playing weaker. >>> >>> Jari >> >> >>I do not think those types of solutions work, i.e. less time, fewer nodes, lower >>depth, etc. The program will still play relatively strong until some other >>algorithm takes over (i.e. the below 1600 drop piece problem that John noted). >> >>What you need is a chess engine that generates multiple ply 1 PVs. Then, it >>could randomly pick a different PV each move. >> >>So, for example, if it had 5 PVs that it could choose from, at 2600 setting it >>would always pick PV 1 each time. At 2400 setting, it would occasionally pick >>the PV 2 move. At 2200, it would pick PV 1 45%, PV 2 45%, PV 3 10%. At 1600, it >>might pick PV 1 20%, PV 2 20%, PV 3 20%, PV 4 20%, PV 5 20%. >> >>Then, the computer would not be dropping pieces, even at a 1000 setting (even >>though 1000 players often do drop a piece). But, it would rarely be playing the >>best move in those positions at the lower settings. >> >>Of course, you would have to add in some logic that the scores of the PVs could >>not be that drastically different. For example, NxB would normally result in PxN >>as PV 1. If PV 2 did not have a similar PV score to PV 1 (i.e. there were no >>waiting moves that do not lose the bishop), then the program would still make >>the PV 1 move, regardless of setting. >> >>KarinsDad :) > >I forgot to mention that lowering the depth in conjunction with this type of >solution would be optimal. It doesn't make sense to pick a PV 5 move that avoids >a capture 14 ply down that is also avoided by PV 1 through 4. If the setting is >1200 rating, then the program should not generally be seeing more than 4 to 6 >ply down before deciding on it's PVs. > >KarinsDad :) Interesting but .... Computer's today run at hundreds of mhz. It wasn't always so. When I played computers that ran at 3 and 4 mhz, it was possible to select levels from very weak up to the top level (which might have been 2000.) But today's comptuers usually have a minimum setting of one second per move. Fritz at that time setting is probably still a master at speed chess. I have tried to set programs at fractions of seconds per move, but they won't allow it. :-) So allowing a program to be set at fractions of seconds per move would help. I have suggested in this forum that computer programs have levels where .... level 1 stops after passing 32 nodes level 2 stops after passing 64 nodes level 3 stops after passing 128 nodes level 4 stops after passing 256 nodes level 5 stops after passing 512 nodes etc. Some people have tried to shoot down this idea saying I shouldn't be such a wuss and that if I can't play even with a senior master level computer that maybe I should take up dominoes. :-) I suspect, however, that most people buy a computer program for playing, and they want to find a level that will give them a challenge without them getting totally clobbered. John Coffey
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.