Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:01:40 09/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 29, 2000 at 15:52:10, Oliver Roese wrote: >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. The contradiction is that if you waste a lot of time on one target you have not enough time to waste on another one. Another point is that if you improve your program to avoid bad positions in the first place you do not need the swindle mode because you do not get the positions when you need to use it. 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.