Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:30:17 08/02/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 02, 1998 at 12:25:52, Robert Pawlak wrote: >On August 02, 1998 at 09:36:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>>>3. factor in some sort of random number so that positions that are bad >>>>will randomly look less bad or actually look good. Or, if the random >>>>addition is large enough, but infrequent enough, the program might begin >>>>to make tactical blunders (ICC has some *bach programs that do (or did)) >>>>this, and they would make an occasional blunder like a weaker human). > >I think I remember playing one of these, and having bach overlook a mate in 1! >(is this possible, or is my memory confused) Yeah, this is what I want :) > >But seriously, from a marketing standpoint, I think that good handicapping could >be an effective selling point for some of the up-and-coming software. > >It is probably too much to ask Ed which approach he uses - probably a trade >secret. > >Bob P. This is a difficult problem. You want a program to play worse, but a 1500 player does't hang his queen very often, nor does he overlook mate in 1 very often. That's what I don't like about the handicapping ideas I have tried so far... program still plays like s 2200 player except for an occasional mistake that looks like an 800. I think you have to tone down the search + qsearch as Don suggested, but I think you also *must* tone down the positional scores. IE does a 1200 player really know much about distant passed pawns, outposts, backward pawns, etc? Crafty at 2 plies still plays non-1500 chess, although it might overlook something tactically that a 1500 player would probably not...
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.