Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 18:49:11 11/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2000 at 13:06:26, Rafael Andrist wrote: >On November 20, 2000 at 12:26:24, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>On November 20, 2000 at 12:13:04, Severi Salminen wrote: >> >>> >>>>Maybe a computer chess programmer would be willing to modify his program to add >>>>the capability to measure the amount of time the program uses to find the >>>>solution. That would not give a direct measurement of how difficult the >>>>position would be for a human player, but might give some indication at least. >>>> >>>>Incidentally, you could try using a stopwatch. >>> >>>I don't think that is a good idea. Computers can find very deep combinations >>>very fast and the same position might be allmost impossible for a human. I think >>> better approach would be to check out the types of moves that lead to solution. >>>If there are many non_captures, non_checks and non_promotions, it is probably >>>more difficult for a human. Captures, checks and promotions are easier to find. >>>Also the depth is an issue, mate in 10 is harder than mate in 2. And mate with 5 >>> sequential captures is easier than a mate in 4 with "silent" moves. >>> >>>Severi >> >>The above hi-lights the issue of "What Makes a Position Difficult for a Human to >>Solve?". This should be of great interest to computer chess programmers because >>it would give an indication as to how to program chess-playing programs to put >>up the greatest resistance to human opponents. >> >>In human vs human chess, one very successful strategy is to keep on posing very >>difficult problems for the opponent to solve. Eventually, the opponent may >>crack under the pressure! [Of course, if the opponent is following this same >>strategy, then problems posed by the opponent must be solved also.] I see no >>reason why this would not apply in human vs computer [or visa versa] games. >>After all, the top GMs whip the chess programs by playing anti-machine >>strategies. Why not let the engines turn the tables on the GMs and play >>anti-human chess against humans? > >I would be nice to have algorithm that detect that. But: It's more difficult to >find the silent moves for the computer than the human (at GM level). So, first >the program need to find the silent moves in normal search and then detect that >these are silent moves. I case of finding a mate this would be not very >difficult to program, but if the gain is some positional advantage or a silent >attack, a human can easier find the silent moves. Perhaps so. Perhaps it would be difficult to program. But when did that ever keep a dedicated chess programmer from trying? If your life depended on it [obviously it does not], how would you tackle this "difficult" programming task?
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.