Author: blass uri
Date: 08:29:07 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. I do not see a reason that the computer should play in a similiar way to humans in the weak levels. If you want to play against weak humans you do not need to buy a computer. You can play against them in tournaments. If you do not want to get out of your home then you can use ICC or other sites. 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.