Author: KarinsDad
Date: 07:55:41 07/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 2000 at 10:43:35, John Coffey wrote: >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 It may have been implemented. Who knows? But it will have the same difficulty as limiting time or ply or anything else which does not attempt to randomly access 2nd best or 3rd best, etc. moves. In order to play like a 1200 player, you have to make weak moves. In order to do that, you cannot pick the best move based on some esoteric criteria, but rather, you must pick weak moves. KarinsDad :)
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.