Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 17:47:14 07/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 30, 2002 at 20:39:40, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: I forgot to add that you guys even forgot to include a stalemate rule! >On July 30, 2002 at 15:52:18, Ren Wu wrote: > >A story regarding playing strength says really *nothing*. >DIEP was the only active playing chess program on icc that topped >all bullet rating lists. Crafty already couldn't play any human more >so strong it was at bullet. > >It all says nothing. How much work you put in a game says nothing whether >the strongest program beats strong players. > >Let me give you 2 examples: > - chess 40 moves average branching factor, strongest programs definitely > GM strength but real soon programs were at a decent level. > - international checkers, branching factor 10 or something (don't > blame me when it's 9 or 12). Of course with the help of a strong draughts > player i make a draughts program and directly get second. No Truus is > not actively playing anymore here. Napoleon destroys truus at tests > here at home. > >When i show up, i completely outsearch opponents, even havin gmore knowledge >in evaluation (of course not so well tuned, which is the only major problem, >as we lack time to tune it all). In endgame i sometimes outsearched opponents >by 20 ply. > >It took 4 years without modifying a byte to the search of napoleon before >the strongest programs, with help of some EGTBs, came close to that >search depth. > >Nevertheless, some work real hard on their programs, and not a single >draughts program, despite finding tactical shots of world champions in >litterary microseconds, is capable of beating real strong draughts players. > >There have been of course very little official matches, but if i see >Marcel Monteba and several others easily draw or win from the thing, i >definitely know that chessprograms are STRONGER than draughts programs. > >This is real weird. > >Of course a big explanation lies in the fact that with a few weeks of >programming and a analytical strong draughts player to the right of me >i am directly in the 'world top' if there is a world top anyway here. > >But the obvious thing is of course that the game is much harder to play >than a general chess game, simply because in chess the CENTER is so >hard. > >However mating the king is pretty hard. > >In Chinese Chess mating the king is pretty easy compared to chess. > >Try to mate a king in chess with just a rook and a knight without help >from your own king! > >In Chinese chess this should be no problem! > >The game starts in complete chaos there. So that's great for programs. >The more chaos the better. Of course both chess and chinese chess face >extensive openingsbooks. In fact nowadays the DIEP book is 750000 positions, >all given in by hand by arturo ochoa. Automatic PGN collections DO NOT >WORK anymore already for a few years in chess! If you show up at a world >championship with an automatic generated and/or tuned book, then you >are history! You need extensive manual labour here! > >Saying the best players lose from a program is obviously no good commercial >for the strength of the professional players in that game, but even if >the first statement is true here, it is completely independant from how >much effort has been put in a game. > >Branching factor of chess is worse than draughts. In fact any draughts program >is searching tactical far beyond the capabilities of any human. Yet human >beats the programs easily. Only those who try a tactical game against it, >they of course get annihilated. > >The center is not so important in draughts. It is important in chess however, >so if a player has no good judgement there, he's already soon history. > >In chinese chess the king stands on a small square, mating it is of course >a peanut for programs. Just one shot at it and there you go. Enter a rook >and a canon at the same time and it's game over. > >I dare to state that tactics in chinese chess are more important than >in chess! > >Best regards, >Vincent > > > > > > > >>On July 30, 2002 at 09:57:03, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On July 30, 2002 at 05:57:38, Omid David wrote: >>> >>>Competition is strong there, it's not like the tictactoe section >>>such as the amazones where everyone who has a bugfree program >>>can win easily the gold medal. >>> >>>I was actually watching a few games there from Tony against one >>>of the stronger programs. Chinese chess is running a lot behind >>>on how advanced chessprograms are nowadays. >> >>Obvious this is not true. But it is understandable here. The center stage has >>been in mainland china for last few years, and it is hard for westerner to know >>what is going on there. It is all in chinese. Take a look at this site >> >>www.movesky.net >> >>it does have a english version, but unfortunetly very limited, chinese versin >>have a lot more news and events there. >> >>This is the premier site for advanced chinese chess players, include many of the >>professional masters and grandmasters. >> >>My chinese chess program, mrsj, has been playing in that site for some time. It >>has set a few records there, and it won twice for its LeiSheng Tournament, and >>is the current defending LeiSheng. >> >>That tournament works like this. Only the top 32 players in the server can >>partispate in a 7 round two-games swiss tournament, the first place finisher >>then challenge the defending champion. The time control is 30 minutes free time, >>then 1 minutes per move. >> >>From the tournaments, and all other games my program played there, All experts >>agreed that mrsj have the proformance of China's group B level. In China, the >>natinal individual tournament has been divide to two groups, group A usually >>about 24 people, and was the strongest, group B, again from 24-48 people. Giving >>the dominence of China at Chinese chess, one can safely guess that my program, >>running on a standard pc, was at around world 100th, if not 50th, place. I >>don't think that chess program is much advance than that. >> >>Computer chinese chess is not behind than what computer chess has, not even a >>inch. >> >>Ren.
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.