Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:07:03 06/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 25, 2004 at 09:43:43, Dezhi Zhao wrote: >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. I see no interest in games when the hard part is to know the rules. The hard part should be to choose the correct move and not to find the list of legal moves. I can also define rules that will make it very hard for humans to play the game. For example define a game that is identical to chess except the list of legal moves that is different. Players need to play every time one of the moves that win the most material based on 7 ply brute force search(if there is mate in 4 they have to play the move that lead to the shortest mate and if they can win a pawn by 7 ply conmbination but not more than it they have to play the move that wins a pawn based on 7 ply brute force search). Do not confuse win a pawn based on x ply search with real winning of material and if we play the same game with 1 ply instead 7 plies then every side has to play the biggest capture in 1 ply except cases that the biggest capture generates stalemate and in this case they have to play it if all the alternative leads to position with material disadvantage. Computers can do 7 ply brute force search and find the list of the legal moves but it will be very hard for humans only to find if a move is legal. Uri
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.