Author: Gordon Rattray
Date: 08:38:15 08/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 01, 2001 at 09:58:27, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 01, 2001 at 09:08:08, Gordon Rattray wrote: > >>On July 31, 2001 at 22:35:26, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On July 31, 2001 at 19:18:36, Roy Eassa wrote: >>> >>>>On July 31, 2001 at 15:26:08, Ed Panek wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 31, 2001 at 15:24:48, Roy Eassa wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 31, 2001 at 15:21:17, Ed Panek wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Lets say I have a move generator that selects a random move every time it is its >>>>>>>turn. What are the odds against it drawing/winning a game? Is it less likely >>>>>>>than winning a game of Keno with all the correct numbers picked? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Is the opponent Kramnik or Deeper Blue? Or a human rated 400? Or another such >>>>>>"random" program? I think this matters. >>>>> >>>>>Lets try a random opponent first...and then Kramnik >>>>> >>>>>Ed >>>> >>>> >>>>Obviously, the chance of beating another random-playing program is 50% (not >>>>counting draws). >>> >>> >>>It depends how is programmed the random opponent. >>> >>>If the opponent just picks a move at random, odds are 50%. >>> >>>If the opponent is a program that does some sort of of alpha beta on a tree >>>where the leaves receive random numbers, this opponent will win very often. >>> >>>That means: a random evaluation function is much stronger than a program >>>choosing a move at random. >> >>Do you assume that a move leading immediately to checkmate, stalemate, etc. >>returns a meaningful (non-random) value? If not, I don't understand why your >>claim holds true? I assume a "random evaluation function" to be random for >>*all* positions. >> >>Gordon > >I agree with christophe that the question is what randomness means. > >If the evaluation is the material evaluation +some random number between >+2 pawns and -2 pawns then the program clearly does not play random moves and >you can describe it as random evaluation. > >Uri I have to disagree that such an evaluation function is "random". I agree that it would have some element of randomness and therefore "pseudo-random" or "semi-random" or some other term that denotes partial randomness may be used, but not just plain "random". If I have an evaluation function with material, etc. and then add a random value between 0.0000001 and 0.0000005, can I call that "random" too? It certainly wouldn't play very randomly. Ok, I admit that it wouldn't be entirely deterministic either, so I won't describe it as "random" or "deterministic", as neither would be an accurate enough description. By-the-way, if I said that I was choosing moves at random, and then later told you that I actually meant playing a random pawn move, if possible, and if not any other random move, would you think that my initial statement was too vague? I would. Gordon
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.