Author: Keith Evans
Date: 17:18:34 06/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 24, 2004 at 15:07:41, Dezhi Zhao wrote: >On June 24, 2004 at 00:24:39, Keith Evans wrote: > >>On June 23, 2004 at 13:48:03, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On June 22, 2004 at 07:46:02, TEERAPONG TOVIRAT wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>Hi, >>>> >>>>I've never seen any downloadable Chinese chess program that can match >>>>a strong human player. IMHO, it's much more difficult to create a master >>>>level program than in chess. In chess, when you lose the first pawn,it's >>>>likely that you'll lose the game eventually. But, in Chinese chess, you may >>>>find yourself in trouble after you have 1-2 pawns up in the opening. >>>>And you have to handle many specific endgame positions differently. >>> >>>>Regards, >>>>Teerapong >>> >>>There is no commercial motivation for writing chinese chess programs that's the >>>sole reason why the more popular of the 2 games is dominant in computer games. >>> >>>I know the rules of both games and can assure you that it is for an outsider >>>much harder to write a chessprogram beating the strongest chessprograms, than it >>>is to write a chinese chess program beating the strongest chinese chess >>>programs. >>> >>>Note that both require a big effort, but chinese chess is at a much lower level >>>thanks to commercial driven developments in chess. >> >>Don't you think that rules for xiangqi are more complicated that for chess? (See >>Chapter 4 Section 4 of http://www.clubxiangqi.com/rules/asiarule.htm) I don't >>think that there is any free Xiangqi program which understands these rules. If >>you could distill these rules into some trivial C code, then you could help to >>improve the computer referees at the online servers, and you could also help to >>improve the state of non-commercial Xiangqi software. >> > >Agreed. The rules are so complicated that a restricted search seems to be >necessary for an implementation. Chinese rules are even more complicated than >Asian rules. > >>It is my belief that Xiangqi masters could exploit programs which don't >>completely understand these rules, but I don't have any firm evidence of this. >>It's difficult to find much written by masters which has been translated into >>English. It's not clear to me that the rules are well defined in >>computer-computer competitions, in fact there are some that believe that the >>rules should be simplified for computers. I assume that masters insist on some >>official rules when playing computers, but I don't know this for a fact. (Either >>AXF or CXA rules?) > >The effect is more than that you have described. If your program does not >understand rules, the search can not produce a correct move in too many cases. >I don't see any trend CXA wants to simplify the rules. Instead they tend to make >it more complex in each revison. Believe it or not, some Xiangqi masters even >admmitted to me that they do not understand the arcane rules well:) Do you have any examples of really decisive wins by masters over computer programs? The shorter the better. Even against an old program like Uncle Wang? It would be interesting to see them.
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.