Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Saavedra study wrong?!

Author: Maurizio De Leo

Date: 13:43:27 02/09/06

Go up one level in this thread


You could just make a normal search (without TB) from the root position and
choose the highest scoring move from the ones TB indicate as a draw.

On February 09, 2006 at 08:13:27, h.g.muller wrote:

>You hit upon an interesting pronblem of TB play: for positions in the draw
>sector the program hasn't the slightest idea what to play (except avoiding
>losing moves). Where for a human there are draws that you are happy with to
>salvage and draws that you couldn't win by a hair's breadth, the TB simply does
>not make that distinction.
>
>So a TB-driven engine in a drawn KbppKb game with unlike bishops would see
>nothing strange in sacrificing one pawn on the first move, a second pawn on the
>second move, and its bishop on the third move. KKb is still a draw, so why the
>fuss? Of course in KKb there is absolutely no hope left for a swindle, while if
>the opponent did not have the KbppKb TB he might have conceivably made a
>mistake...
>
>This problem is not so easy to solve, because to maximize the probablilty to
>seduce the opponent to a losing error requires knowledge on which type of errors
>he is likely to make. The obvious method of keeping the number of non-losing
>moves as small as possible would only work against an opponent that plays the
>moves randomly. In practice it leads to quick conversion, because if I capture
>his Rook in, say, KrpKr, only the single move that recaptures the Rook is
>non-losing. But in practice it is of course inconceivable he would refrain from
>recapturing the Rook, so the result is certain conversion to a drawn KpK
>end-game that is so trivial that he can not possibly bungle it, even if he does
>not have that TB...



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.