Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:20:47 06/24/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 24, 1998 at 04:39:45, Ed Schröder wrote: >>Posted by Don Dailey on June 23, 1998 at 17:45:56: > >>In Reply to: Re: Rebel's anti-GM option posted by Ed Schröder on June 23, >>1998 at 14:36:49: > >>On June 23, 1998 at 14:36:49, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>>>Posted by blass uri on June 23, 1998 at 10:27:58: > >>>>your descreption in your homepage: > >>>>"In Other words Rebel(using anti-GM) does not need to know the sacrifice >>>>is 100% correct for this position, Rebel smells the chance of an attack >>>>and goes for it" >>>>the example shows Rebel10(not using anti-GM) can miss Rxe6 >>>>assuming I do not have a long time >>>>Uri > >>>Yes and no, it depends. The anti-GM style is not about tactics. The given >>>position from my home page is just an example to show what anti-GM is able >>>to. To pick a "good" example a tactical position is usually much more >>>self-explaining than a quiet position. > >>>An example of a more quiet position... > >>>r2qkbnr/pp1n1ppp/2p5/4p3/3pP3/5BNP/PPPP1PP1/R1BQ1RK1 b > >>>BR .. .. BQ BK BB BN BR >>>BP BP .. BN .. BP BP BP >>>.. .. BP .. .. .. .. .. >>>.. .. .. .. BP .. .. .. >>>.. .. .. BP WP .. .. .. >>>.. .. .. .. .. WB WN WP >>>WP WP WP WP .. WP WP .. >>>WR .. WB WQ .. WR WK .. > >>>01:26 09.36 0.00 g8-f6 d2-d3 d7-c5 f3-g4 d8-b6 (R10) >>>00:48 09.36 0.07 d4-d3 b2-b3 d3-c2 d1-c2 d7-c5 (R10 + anti-GM) > >>>The above is a game fragment of one of Rebel's games at Aegon 1989. >>>Rebel then played the (IMO) ugly 1..d3 Of course the move has advantages >>>but personally I clearly prefer the quiet 1..Nf6 (do not attack while >>>you are behind in development) > >>>Rebel since 1989 has always been in love with this 1..d3 move. Only after >>>a deeper search Rebel switches to 1..Nf6 However Rebel10 using anti-GM >>>will deepen its love for 1..d3 even more and never will switch to 1..Nf6 >>>as it fits in the principals of the anti-GM style. > >>>I guess I have to live with it. I am curious what other programs play. > >>>- Ed - > >>Hi Ed, > >>Can you tell me what the anti-GM principles are? Are they general >>to anti-human or they aimed specifically at Grandmasters? > >Hi Don, > >I would say both see my comments about Aegon in another posting. I found >some patterns how GM's play against computers known as anti-COMP play and >now I like to shoot back with anti-GM :) > >The anti-GM option is NOT the 7th world wonder (yet?!). It's a new >development and like every new development (learning comes to mind) it >will take years to improve. > >Since it's my intention to organize such matches once a year the anti-GM >principals will have my further attention and will be improved for the >future as otherwise you have no chance at all against giants like Anand. > >>Here are a couple anti-human algorithms I have used, I don't know >>how useful they are but they seem to help slightly: > >> 1. Computer gets bonus for 1st and 2nd pawn exchanges (to get >> active play) > >> 2. Computer gets anti-trade-down bonus to encourage pieces to >> stay on the board. > >> 3. Computer gets penalty for pawn rams (pawns butting heads) > >Thanks for hints :) > these are all old ideas. "rams" was implemented in Cray Blitz during the 1984 Levy match, because he specifically went for blocked positions. But I no longer evaluate them this way. I now look for blocked pawns (pawns that can not advance without banging into an opponent's pawn before it can contact an opponent's pawn diagonally (lever) ) and I also count lever opportunities for both sides. If my opponent has more lever opportunities than I do, I'm blocked up and have to wait forhim. On a chess server, with crafty currently rated at 2956, what this means is that IM players play to block the position, then shuffle and draw, and win rating points. This has gotten much harder to do, although it is not perfect. I call this an anti-"anti-computer" strategy, rather than an anti-GM strategy, because busting this type of plan by the opponent it not speculative, and is exactly what I'd do as a human. One test case is two pawns on the board, white/black at e4/e5, and white pawn at d2. Is the white d2 pawn blocked or not? Is the white e4 pawn blocked or not. In my case, d4 is not blocked at all, because d4 will unblock it, unless there are more pawns... but you get the idea. It's complex (and my version is a *long* way from being "right") but the idea is right, *if* you want to avoid being known as "mr draw". :) >>Both must be pretty small so as to not encourage stupid moves >>but only give a general direction to "break ties." > >>I have not thought deeply about others. I am interested in yours >>if you can share them, or others people may have. > >>I view all of these algorithms as very slightly weakening the play >>of the computer, if I considered them optimum then the program >>would always use these algorithms. The idea is to change the style >>slightly to favor open positions again people. > >>- Don > >>P.S. Cilkchess seems to like Ngf6 in your example from 3 ply on. >> It never considers d6. I don't consider this as having any >> real significant and I would trust Rebel's positional feel >> more than Cilkchess. It is unclear to me which is better, >> I kind of like d6 myself! What actually happened in the >> Aegon game? Did d6 prove to be a good move? > >As far as I remember it was an Aegon 1989 (or 1990) game against Lex >Jongsma (dutch journalist of the Telegraaf). Lex always playing his >favorite anti-COMP opening 1.Nc3 I remember Rebel played on a slow >Archimedes RISC computer at 8 Mhz. I forgot about the end result of >the game. All I remembered I disliked 1..d3 very much so I put it in >my database and I fear it has to stay there for a few more years :) > >- Ed -
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.