Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:19:49 09/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 30, 2000 at 06:40:56, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 29, 2000 at 23:59:44, Robert Hyatt 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-. >>> >>>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. >>> >>>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. >>> >>>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. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>Probably the closest thing here was what Berliner did in Hitech: >> >>Assume that you search to depth=N, and for plies 1 thru N-1, move X is >>best. But suddenly, at depth=N, X fails low. If you can't recover the >>original score by playing another move, most programs play the best move >>they can find, which often just loses in a very obvious way. Hans would >>play move X, since it was best until the last iteration, which means it is >>_not_ obvious why it is bad. >> >>Against computers, that might be awful. Against humans? It might work. > >I think that it may work also against computers if you have a big hardware >advantage(you are 10 times faster) or if your program is clearly better in >tactics [I think it may be a good idea for chessmaster because it often can see >tactical ideas based on mate very fast relative to the opponent(it is not rare >for it to find moves based on mates ideas 10 or 100 times faster than other >programs)]. > >Uri Probably right. You just have to be careful. IE if you fail low and use a lot of time, that might let the opponent see the problem. If you aren't tactically stronger in most all positions vs your opponent, you are playing a form of "Russian Roulette".
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.