Author: Dezhi Zhao
Date: 06:43:43 06/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 24, 2004 at 20:18:34, Keith Evans wrote: >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. An example come to my mind at this time is a game between my program and a Hongkong master at ICCS years ago. The program had a wining position, ahead with materials. However it only knew CXA rules and the game was supposed to be under Asian rules. The master drew the game by a one-check and one-mate-threat repetition which is not allowed under Chinese rules. Should the program know Asian rules, it could have won the game. >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.