Author: Harald Lüßen
Date: 02:43:27 12/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 2003 at 03:32:01, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On December 12, 2003 at 16:59:17, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>>My point is: >>> >>>1. Since the programs now are much stronger than 20 years ago, why not change >>>the rule about resigning and let them resing when they are down -10? >>>2. It is true that a bug may help the program which is lost, but which are the >>>chances today? Is it correct to say 1 every 1000? If this is true, why not >>>concentrate to improve their play on the first part of the game rather then >>>hoping to be extremely lucky in the endgame? >> > >Hi, > >first of all thank for the friendly discussion. I undestand your point of view >and I do respect it as I do with everybody points of view. >Still I do not agree with you...see below. > >>The point is, even if the eval is -10, I am under no obligation to resign. > >Correct. >I am asking to change the rule to force a program to resign when the score goes >down to -10 (a mean more or less a queen and 2 rooks down, to summarize). >Why I am asking to change this? >Because I think we better try to get closer to mid/strong players and they do >resign when the disadvantage is too high. >At the lowest national category, so I am not talking at master level, they do >resign if they are a piece down, not to talk about a rook down, so why not make >the programs get closer to that? >-10 is an intermediate level between what is today and what the average chess >players do to avoid annoying the people watching these games. >It is an idea and a proposal. I think this will improve the view chess players >have of computer chess programs. >Of course the programmers can say no, but before doing that think about why you >are writing a chess program. Do you do it only for fun or you would like more >people to get interested on this field and so increase possibly the custormers? I have a few arguments against changing the rules: Sometimes I like t see a very strong defense in lost positions. Sometimes I like to see the shortest way to win. As a weak player I can follow and understand some won endgames better than some parts of the middlegame. Perhaps I learn to win. I won't like to see a human tournament, where the Rules say: If someone is a queen down he is considered lost an loses the game. It could have been a sacrifice. Or it could have been an error of the stronger player and he can win anyway. That is interesting and surely will be discussed later in chess magazines. The same with computers. How do you mesure the positional value and decide it is +-10? As a chess programmer I would build a program that always says it ist +1 in the interface. Internally it may have other values. Or I always say I am on top +10 and win immediately. If you count the material value on the board with standard piece values I build a program that tries to capture pieces as if there is no tomorrow. It will win the tournament even if it is lost in a complete other game called chess that has similar move rules. Harald
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.