Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: experimenting with anti-piecetrading

Author: Stan Arts

Date: 10:14:32 09/23/04


Hi

Today, I've been experimenting with anti-piecetrading again. I have a
preference for Neurosis to try to keep it's pieces, to play more "human"like,
and offer more resistance.

I've always had a system for this, each new gamemove the computer's pieces
are counted, and in the evaluationfunction the current number of computer's
pieces is compared with this root-count. Then the penalty for each traded
piece is also dependant on how much ahead or behind in general. This seems
to work ok for a single position, and sort of works as expected. But what's
worrying is that this can sometimes give hashtable-instability when re-using
hashscores for next gamemoves, because it's root-dependant.

So I wonder, what do you do to to solve this problem?

Do you even use any anti-trade code or none at all?

Because there seem to be a few other problems too.
Even with small values, (I was using 0.03 pawn for a light piece, in equal
positions) instead of having a "human"like tendency not to give away it's
pieces, it's going to play very cramped to try and keep it's pieces. (hiding
them away, in dumb ways only a computer can) And is happy to play poor
positional moves, giving away positional advantages by the penalty-ammount
for trading pieces, instead of the effect I wanted. :) So often making weak
moves in quiet positions.
Often expecting the opponent to capture it's pieces. So expecting nonsence
lines.
And asymetry. Although with the system as I described above it's back to 0
again for each new capture-gamemove. (But with a change in score, which can
give the hashtable-problems.)

Also, this afternoon I've turned the code off for the first time in a long
time, and to my surprise/shock it really does seem to play a bit better..I
hadn't thought anything of it in a long time. (oops)

What are your thoughts on this?

Maybe such code is better left out all together, and values for a piece
being "good" or "bad" and so are much more important anyway?

Greetings
Stan





This page took 0.01 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.