Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Shredder wins in Graz after controversy

Author: Bob Durrett

Date: 17:55:50 12/09/03

Go up one level in this thread


On December 09, 2003 at 12:32:15, Robert Hyatt wrote:

<snip>

>I don't see how this matters since the engine doesn't understand the concept
>of "my opponent might make a mistake."

<snip>

Hmmm.  That is an interesting idea!

One thing humans do when losing is sometimes to play using a [programmable]
strategy of trying to create problems for the opponent and playing to increase
the probability of the opponent making a mistake.  This would be a good idea if
conventional play were perceived to have a low probability of yeilding the draw.

A typical decision made by human GMs playing in bad positions is to "complicate
the game" in the hopes of increasing liklihood of the opponent going astray.
This is just one example of selecting moves on the basis of perceived
probabilities.  Another example is putting the opponent into a severe bind.  One
does this not because a clear win is forseen but because one feels, based on
past experience, that "an opponent in a bind is likely to not see the hard to
find one-and-only defense."  Putting the opponent into difficult positions may
be 99% of GM chess.  Some may argue this point, but I see chess at the top
levels as being very much a game of probabilities.

I don't know what kind of program algorithms and code would be needed, but the
idea is interesting.  Perhaps some programmer will make a stab at this.
Generally, one must have a "model" of the opponent stored in memory [or imbedded
in the code itself].  This model could be expressed statistically or in
probabilistic terms.  The idea of having and using a model of the opponent is a
key idea!

Bob D.



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.