Author: Graham Laight
Date: 02:41:26 11/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
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? Many chess programs have the knack of getting the human opponent to make a mistake by deliberately choosing moves that make the position tactically tricky. I recently challenged a friend to play against a computer with a queen advantage, and 50 minutes on the clock against the computer's 5 minutes. My first thought was to use the strongest program I had, but after trying the challenge myself against several programs, I changed my choice to TC-2100, because of its amazing ability to create tactical mayhem in seemingly quiet middlegame positions. TC-2100 only sees a few hundred NPS. I actually won the bet - but only because the opponent foolishly tried to play quickly, thinking that this would give him the advantage. Completely inexperienced against computers. When I first bought TC-2100 (many years ago), I challenged another friend, who's both an IM and experienced against the computer, to a G10 game. In the first game, he suddenly announced, "It's beaten me". Before I could work out what was wrong with his position (which still looked OK to me), he reset the pieces, said "this time, I'm going to thrash it", then duly demolished it in the 2nd G10 game. -g
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.