Author: KarinsDad
Date: 22:26:15 07/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 2000 at 20:26:27, 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 :) > > >The idea has occured to me before. Write a program that would decide randomly >between between the best N # of moves where N is based upon the level of >difficulty. I saw the same problem that you saw which was that sometimes >the best move is forced. So then you have to decide how much of an error you >will allow. If you will allow a 3 point error at 1300 but only a 2 point >error at 1400 then you have the problem that 1300 will drop knights and 1400 >won't. Maybe that isn't a problem. But maybe there would be too much >difference between 1300 and 1400. > >John Coffey I think the issue is one of having a program attempt to decide the average "power" of a move based on the setting desired. Once that is decided (does that mean only searching 8 ply, does that mean randomly picking between the perceived best three moves, etc.), the program can still play reasonably well, but it can also blunder if a piece hangs in 6 ply, etc. The problem comes in when the program makes a move that is SO stupid that not even a low rated player would make that move (in standard time controls, in blitz, almost everyone but extremely good players blunder). When this happens, the program is considered a dumb machine. I do not think there is a way to program around this since the programs are not artificially intelligent. So, sooner or later, even the best algorithm to handle different "ratings" will pull a really stupid move at the lower settings and I do not think it can be avoided. KarinsDad :)
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.