Author: blass uri
Date: 08:24:34 07/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 2000 at 10:55:41, KarinsDad wrote: >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 :) The best move based on one ply search are often weak moves. Uri
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.