Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:05:18 08/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 01, 2001 at 11:53:55, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba 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 >> > >Even with a pure random non-constant evaluation, deeper search helps (but I >would assume that checkmates and other ways to end the game are recognised and >properly evaluated). The reason is that even a random evaluation will favour >moves which increase the own mobility (as long as the search depth is bigger >than two) Why? If the evaluation is a random number I see no reason for prefering moves that increase the mobility. If you assume that the program evaluates checkmates correctly then it s clear that it plays better than rabdom moves because it is going to never miss a simple forced mate so you do not need to use mobility. Uri
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.