Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Chess-programming ethics.

Author: blass uri

Date: 14:10:48 06/10/98

Go up one level in this thread



On June 10, 1998 at 15:25:00, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On June 10, 1998 at 10:44:05, blass uri wrote:
>
>>
>>On June 10, 1998 at 06:39:35, Amir Ban wrote:
>>
>>>I don't know anything about suicide chess, but at some level it becomes
>>>poor strategy to assume that your opponent will make mistakes.
>>
>>I think if the computer see that the opponent has an adventage of more
>>than
>>2 pawns it is better to assume the opponent will make mistakes
>>otherwise the computer can do moves that do not give it a practical
>>chance
>
>I think this will get you killed.  IE what if your opponent is simply
>out-searching you, and reaches a position where it loses material no
>matter
>how deeply it searches.  If you assume it will make mistakes, it will
>hand
>you your head in a paper sack.

if I am in a bad position it is not important if I lose after 70 moves
or after 40
moves.
If my opponent is a good computer it will not help but if it is
a human maybe I think it can help to get more points
but it is not very important because in the most of the cases it will
not help
>
>
>>
>>there are some assumption that can be done
>>
>>1)you can assume in this case that the opponent must do in the next move
>>the move the computer would do if it had only 1 second per move.
>>2)you can assume the human opponent will miss long moves.
>>
>>but I think it is not very important for top programs because
>>in most of the cases these ideas will not help against strong opponents.
>>
>
>I think this is too dangerous.  And it will cause you to lose games
>against
>deeper-searchers, simply because of the luck factor that will
>occasionally
>get you into a winning position.  But when you incorrectly deduce that
>this is not luck on your part, but, rather, is a lack of skill on your
>opponent's part, look out...

I think it will not cause me to lose games because
if the opponent has a big adventage and is a deep searcher
I lose in any case
maybe 2 pawns is not big enough and it should be more than 3 pawns
but the idea is clear because my idea was against humans
only when you see the human is going to win.

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.