Author: John Coffey
Date: 07:43:35 07/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 2000 at 21:39:42, blass uri wrote: >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 Although I agree, I think it is a poor solution. At 5 or 6 ply the computers will play a very strong middle game (especially at speed ches) but a very weak endgame. why is the only way to limit how much a computer thinks done in ply? Why must 1 second a move always be the minimum? What is wrong with the idea of being able to control the number of nodes a computer looks at? (Not to give you a hard but, but I am wondering why such a simple solution hasn't been implemented before.) 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.