Author: Amir Ban
Date: 02:55:41 01/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 1998 at 18:17:12, Jay Scott wrote: >It's the last round and your program needs to win. >Either a draw or a loss will put you at the same standing. >Or, it's the last round and you can't afford to lose. >With a win or a draw, you take clear first. > >Your opponent is stronger than you, and you'll be >satisfied with a draw. Or, your opponent is much weaker >and you want to try for a win even in a worse position. > >Humans are pretty good at adjusting their play to the >situation. But programs tend to think that an equal >sharp position is about the same as an equal drawish >position--if they have a preference, then it's always >the same preference regardless of circumstances. Some >programs have a "contempt factor" that adjusts the value >of a forced draw, but I've never heard of a program that >tries to take into account the likelihood and importance >of an eventual draw that can't yet be seen in the search. > >The problem can be solved in principle by including a >separate drawish<->sharp measurement in the evaluator. >If the pawn structure is symmetrical, the position is >more drawish; if there's one open file that all the >heavy pieces will be exchanged on, it's more drawish; >opposite color bishops are drawish in the endgame and >sharp in the middlegame; a big concentration of enemy >pieces around the king suggests sharpness; that kind >of thing. Of course it's hard to measure this accurately, >but then, it's also hard to tell whether you have >enough compensation for a pawn. Measuring drawishness >doesn't seem any more difficult than that. > >Once you have a drawishness measure, you can use it to >adjust the evaluation depending on how valuable a draw >is for this game. If you need to win, then a drawish >position is similar to a losing position. If you only >need a draw, a drawish position is similar to a winning >position. > >Does anybody know of a program that does something like >this? Tell us about it! > >I think this would be good for getting more half points >from grandmasters and more full points from weaker opponents. >I'm puzzled why I haven't heard of a program doing it. > > Jay Sharp positions are often drawish, because of Mutual Assured Destruction and other effects, while quiet positions are often quietly won by one side. As for humans claim of being able to play for a draw, here's a true story: In one league season the club where Junior plays decided not to put its strongest player on first board, but someone rated 2350. The reason given: He can get a draw against anyone. The result was a disaster, and they didn't try it the following season. Amir
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.