Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: How strong is Deep Sjeng (redshift variant)?

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 20:56:58 04/01/03

Go up one level in this thread


On April 01, 2003 at 16:22:33, George Sobala wrote:

>On April 01, 2003 at 14:07:45, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>For a computer to almost break even at 3 0 is _terrible_.
>
>Robert, I really think that you continue to miss the point of the redshift
>settings for Deep Sjeng. Of COURSE they cripple the engine's chess playing
>skills - but not in the usual ways of reducing the search depth or making it
>deliberately blunder once in a while. Instead, the redshift personality has a
>WILDLY unbalanced view of the relative values of pieces on the one hand, versus
>mobility and king attack on the other (so that e.g. it may have an eval of +5 to
>+10 just for an attack). And I mean wildly - even Gambit Tiger on "suicidal"
>setting is a mere pussycat compared to redshift's crass stupidity in attack.
>


I understood that.  But someone said something about "doing much better
against humans" but when I saw the 60-40 split, "much better" didn't leave
me with a warm, fuzzy feeling.  That was my only point.  That _any_ settings
should do better than 60-40 at 3 0 blitz time controls...




>The interesting consequence, is that whilst other comps eat it for lunch (e.g.
>even mscp on ICC rated around 1700 and with a search depth of 5 will regularly
>beat it), humans up to (weak) IM level struggle to do so. (I grant you that I
>merely refer to performance at ICC-type time settings.) I find it interesting
>that its loss of playing skill against humans is disproportionately small
>compared to its huge loss of playing skill against comps.
>
>Anyway, the net result is an engine which will give a weak human player a fun
>game, where Bxh6 or Nxf2-type sacs by the comp do not automatically mean "Oh
>dear, I may as well resign".
>
>And the hypothesis is that perhaps the strongest chess engines may challenge
>humans better in the future by being tuned to the weaknesses in human play, by
>being more adventurous and unsound, even whilst compromising their performance
>against other comps.



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.