Author: Oliver Roese
Date: 12:52:10 09/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 29, 2000 at 15:32:13, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 29, 2000 at 14:40:05, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>Hi Bob >>Well, let me give you a more detailed an idea of what I try to mean. >>Suppose the program is already in a losing track. From then on what I say is >>that he should try to put the opponent in the more tricky scenaries, not jus >>looking for the best thoeretical move to do. How to do it: maximizing the chance >>of the opponent to blunder. Example. Supose Crafty plays and has two moves and >>the adversary has three moves in answer for each of those two moves. This, of >>course, is just an example. >>Now, supose move A has the following answers: move x, score 5+; move y, score >>5,5+ and move z, score 5,9+ >>Then you have move B with the following possible answers: move x1, with score >>6,7+; move y2, with score 5,0+ and move z2, with score 1- >> >>Now, in the usual way, Crafty would choose move A, as much even the best >>opponent move there is just 5,9+, but with move B the opponent has the chance to >>play x1, with score 6,7+. >>What I say is that in this field of bad scores, that kind of reasonning has not >>too much sense as anyway, with 5.0+ or with 6,7+, anyway the program is lost. So >>the idea of a swindle comes, as in human games: you choose move B because there >>there is a chance the opponent will mistake and play z2, with score 1-. Realizing this sheeme would have a deep designimpact, since one would have to look on a complete subtree of depth 1. > >This is not so simple. >The question is if there is a practical chance that the opponent is going to >blunder. > >It is possible that move A is better from practical reasons because because >after move A there is a practical chance that the opponent is going to blunder >when after move B there is no practical chance that the opponent will miss the >+6.7 move. > Good point. I think most of the time the "chance" would be a mere missing of a retake. >I think that it is not a good idea to invest time on swindle mode if you want to >win humans in regular games and it is better to invest time in preventing a bad >position in the first place. These goals are conceptionally not contradictoric. > >Ideas for swindle mode can be used only if they are good and simple to do and I >think that the idea that you suggest is not good and is not simple. > I think that condemming a new idea is simple _and_ bad. Since it is contraproductive. >Uri Oliver
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.