Author: Steffen Jakob
Date: 00:31:09 09/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 29, 1999 at 22:22:31, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On September 29, 1999 at 20:52:37, Michael Fuhrmann wrote: > >> 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? > >It is rumoured that some of the commercial programs will do this if they are >hitting "guaranteed loss" scores, though none of the authors has stood up and >admitted it (here, anyway). I am not commercial but I am doing something like this. I call it "lucky punch mode". From my web page: "2.lucky punch mode When Hossa has a very bad position but still has enough material to start an attack then he doesn't take care too much about losing more material but rather tries to start a wild attack against the opponent's king. This approach is especially useful in blitz games against human opponents." Greetings, Steffen.
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.