Author: Dezhi Zhao
Date: 10:24:34 06/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 25, 2004 at 12:07:03, Uri Blass wrote: >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. still far from such extent:) >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 I think the major cause of complicated Xiangqi rules is to prevent easy draws. Perpetual checks, as for a simple example, is an easy-to-do in Xiangqi even for the losing side because a king is confined to only 9 squares. Therefore, perpetual checks are illegal.
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.