Author: Uri Blass
Date: 06:34:28 02/25/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 25, 2006 at 06:20:43, Tord Romstad wrote: >On February 25, 2006 at 06:15:01, Graham Laight wrote: > >>Instead of playing on an 8x8 board, play on an 80x80 board, with each side >>having 80 pawns, 20 rooks, 20 knights, 20 bishops, 10 queens and 10 kings - each >>of which must be taken to win the game (I'll call this "super chess"). >> >>For illustration, late me make some sweeping assumptions about chess: suppose >>that each position has an average of 37 moves, and that a chess computer looks >>at 2 billion (2*10^9) positions per move. In super chess, there would be an >>average of well over 10*37 = 370 moves per position, because rooks, bishops and >>queens would have more moves, and knights and other pieces would also have more >>moves available on average, so lets say that the average number of moves would >>be 1000 per position. >> >>In chess, the number of ply the computer can search comprehensively is: >> >>37^n = 2*10^9 >>log(37)*n = log(2*10^9) >>n = log(2*10^9)/log(37) >>n = 5.93 >> >>We all know, of course, that extensions can reach a much deeper level than this. >> >>In super chess, the depth of the comprehensive search is: >> >>log(2*10^9)/log(1000) = 3.1 - which is not nearly enough to play well. The >>extensions will be even more seriously impacted. >> >>So - each time the programmers get a bit uppity, all we have to do is challenge >>them to a game of super chess! > >I fear you would be very disappointed by the results. Computer programs >would play this game very poorly, but so would humans. You would leave >your pieces hanging all the time. It isn't easy to see that the knight you >just moved can be captured by a bishop 50 squares away. > >It's better to change to a chess variant with a roughly normal board >size, but which computer programs can't evaluate well. Shogi (Japanese >chess) would be a good choice. > >Tord Note that increasing the size of the board to more than 8*8 help humans in go(I suspect that go 8*8 can be even solved by computers). I agree that 80*80 is too much but increasing the board to more than 8*8 can help humans relative to computers. If you want to increase the branching factor then I have other ideas. For example give the players additional option to change the square of one of their pieces in the board(with no capture) when they make a move instead of playing a normal move when the piece that they changed it's square cannot move in the next move and needs to wait one move before moving again. For example 1.Nb1-g5 can be a legal move but it is probably not a good move because after h6 the knight cannot move in move 2. 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.