Author: blass uri
Date: 18:39:42 07/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 2000 at 19:34:02, John Coffey wrote: >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. :-) You can set level of x plies per move. 1 ply per move is the same level in all computers and is relatively weak level. Uri
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.