Author: GuyHaworth
Date: 02:46:36 08/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
Sacrificing to reach 'EGT territory' and a guaranteed win has been seen several
times. The fact that EGT-wins are 'attractors' was noted in "3-5-Man Chess
Maximals and Mzugs", GH/PK/JT/CW [ICGA_J v24.4, Dec 2001].
"Any port in a storm" comes to mind.
Others can add their examples but I can remember:
a) a Shredder game which folded down to KBBKN
b) Deep_Junior-Deep_Fritz (elimination match) Game 4 which folded to KRPKR
- as in ICGA_J v24.4
- you would expect KRPKR to be targetted relatively frequently in this way
For an extreme example, put the bK on a1, the wQ on b3 and other force
marginally winning for White elsewhere. Then play 1.Qa2/b1/b2 KxQ ...
Aesthetics are a personal thing: one might say that watching the victor ditch
surplus force to guarantee the win is aesthetic. I would say that seeing small
advantages turned more often by infallible play into wins adds to the
aesthetics.
If the reward-system for chess is generalised from 0/0.5/1 to:
- draws scores 'd' points
- win scores 'd + w + a*moves_to_mate/b': w>=d, a >= 0, b>0
then you are more interested in the quickest mate.
[ As in the Argentina tournament with Hiarcs, (and football in the UK) I am in
favour of creating better incentives to win: I throw this in here! ]
There is an argument for training chess-engines to be more competent in
endgames, either without EGTs completely, or with win/draw/lose EGTs only. This
would arguably improve their pre-EGT endgame play.
The learning/evaluation process requires a definition of 'competence', and I
have just proposed one such [ICGA Computer Olympiad 7 Workshop Proceedings,
Maastricht 2002].
The point about EGTs being 'unfair' in human-computer play has been raised more
than once. They are only literally 'unfair' if their use breaks a rule of the
competition.
However, I think there is an argument for giving the carbon side of the
competition some bionic help against the silicon. The October K-computer
matches will have a sense of anti-climax if they are won by errors that others
easily see. One might argue that humans should have access (via computers) to
opening-books and EGTs to level the playing field somewhat on the memory side.
In my 'Bionic Chess', we could also allow the human a 'vet this move by N-ply
search' service ... and more time than the computer gets.
g
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.