Author: Michael Fuhrmann
Date: 17:52:37 09/29/99
From my limited understanding of computer chess, I gather that
programs choose moves based on the assumption that their opponents always make
the best possible moves. This may not happen -- especially in the case of a
human opponent. Which leads to the paradox that computers might win more games
if they sometimes played weaker moves.
The reason for this is that humans know that a computer always makes
the best move according to its own analysis. This predictability can only
benefit the human.
Take this example: a computer sees that, given best play by it and
its opponent, it is about to lose the equivalent of a piece.
A GM (let's say white) in the same position might decide that loss of
the piece will lead to a hopeless position, and try to distract his human
opponent with a counterattack. The counterattack is unsound, and the GM knows
it. With correct play by black, white will actually be worse off. But in a
complex position, the counterattack may look sufficiently threatening to
distract black. The result: black abandons his own attack and is eventually
"faked out" of his advantage. White steals the game.
In some positions, white has little or nothing to lose and
everything to gain by this ploy.
So (a) Is any computer today capable of choosing this kind of
technically unsound, counter-attacking move (in positions where it will probably
lose anyway given best play) instead of the "correct" move according to its
eval?
And (b) Does anyone else agree that if a computer could do this, it
would add a human-like, "psychological" dimension to its arsenal?
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.