Vote Chess: Game 2 - Page 18

Brian-E · 2014-07-17, 07:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

Regardless, wouldn't you agree that there is nothing to consider about the upcoming move?

Look again. And please don't kibitz.

gd_barnes · 2014-07-17, 07:37

Why would I look again? I've followed the game in detail from the beginning. I'll say no more now but I think quite a bit can be said about this particular situation when the game is done and I'm not referring to move analysis.

LaurV · 2014-07-17, 10:16

Well, I didn't see any move, the Geckos still have few days up, and generally they have 7 days for each move, it is their business how they use these seven days, even if a move is forced, maybe they want to use this time to analyze further development in the game. It is their right. No hurry in our side. I am generally speaking, not for conditional moves.

If we are going to brainstorm something,

we better could "invent" some rules which forbid using of the computers, without influencing the game too much. For example we used to play correspondence with additional rules. Make a list of 50 or so rules which will totally screw up a computer program, and before the game starts, pick few (3 or 4) from the list and use them in the game.

Ex:
- pawns can move 2 squares any time, not only from the first line, but only once in their life (screwing up finals with pawns against horses or bishops, as the pawn could pass the guarded fields)
- a pawn can overpass a blocking pawn (other specific piece?) once in its life (by jumping over it)
- the horse can do a 2x2 move (as opposite of a "normal" 2x1 move) during the first x (5? 10?) moves (this totally screws up a "classical" opening).
- king can move like a horse once (twice? etc) in its life
- you are not allowed to re-take immediately (this is inspired from ko situations in go, so if one captures your piece, you have to find a stronger threat, so the opponent moves for the stronger threat, so you can capture, but this is kinda stupid, because is screwing up the game totally)
- etc, I can produce a hundred of these idiocies in half hour, of course most will be stupid and unplayable, but few may turn out being quite intelligent. Contributions are welcomed.

Then we vote (and motivate why) few of them (3-4) to be used in each game we start. The players will not be able to use any computer program, unless they can implement a lot of new things in an existent engine in a very short amount of time. Writing a chess engine to play bad is very easy, but to have a good program, one must use existent (strong) engines, and those are not easy to modify.

Huh? make a new thread for crazy suggestions?

henryzz · 2014-07-17, 10:37

Any of those rules would make the game not be chess which would spoil it for me. Even chess960 is taking it a bit far for me.
I don't think I am revealing too much by saying there are two moves we are considering currently.

For the next game I was thinking about suggesting that both teams join together to try to beat a strong chess engine(maybe crafty?). What do people think to that?

LaurV · 2014-07-17, 11:01

That's the fun, to find the "right" set of rules which does not change the game, but screw up the AI. That is why there are 50, or more, and we "vote" for few of them. Taking the one rule with the blocked pawns, for example, this would not pose any problem for a human player, and additionally, how many times do you find blocked pawns in a real game? And if so, ho many times would be actually "better" to jump over it? This does not influence the game too much, but it is enough to have a single pawn blocked by other pawn, and all the "backtrack" of the engine is screwed up. You even don't need a "blocked pawn" on board, it can appear after few moves, the AI will discard all the branches which could derive from jumping over the pawn, and get lost doing "standard" chess analysis.

Of course, most of the "rules" would be stupid and not applicable, but we can do this "exercise" (of proposing rules and talking about them, make a large list with the best of them) just for fun of doing it, and to see the outcome, without effectively playing a game. Later, we may want to "test" some of them by playing "new types" of chess. But that is another story.

Related to the second part of the post, playing against a known engine, I don't believe any actual chess program can beat us, if we are allowed an opening book (from the web), "days" to think for each move, and a board to analyze. No way a computer could beat me under these circumstances... But you never know, and it will still be a lot of fun to try.

Brian-E · 2014-07-17, 11:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurV

That's the fun, to find the "right" set of rules which does not change the game, but screw up the AI.

I hope I'm not too naive to think we can currently rely on the team-members not to cheat with chess programs. Okay, the private subforums from the first game do reveal that one person apparently did (just in the opening), but I think that player's behaviour was pretty exceptional in its "way-outness" and there is, and has been, no-one involved in this second game who is in any way comparable.

Like my team captain, I don't like variants of chess. I prefer to use the highly specific experience I've had with the standard game.

Quote:

Related to the second part of the post, playing against a known engine, I don't believe any actual chess program can beat us, if we are allowed an opening book (from the web), "days" to think for each move, and a board to analyze. No way a computer could beat me under these circumstances... But you never know, and it will still be a lot of fun to try.

I guess you may be joking, but I'll say the following just in case you're not:
If you're anything less than super-grandmaster strength then I think this is a deluded idea..

Any top program will beat us easily, regardless of the time we take to consider our moves. Your suggestion would only interest me (slightly) if we are to be up against a sub-standard program, maybe one written by a forum-member and still in development or something.

henryzz · 2014-07-18, 18:41

36...Bxe7

henryzz · 2014-07-18, 18:50

There are often ways of limiting a chess engine to make it so we could stand a chance of winning. We could give it a short amount of time per move or many chess engines have levels that we could use.
Another alternative is my dad wrote a chess engine which I would guess is at a good level for us to play.
I wouldn't suggest giving a chess engine 7 days per move. We wouldn't stand a chance then.

Brian-E · 2014-07-18, 18:55

For me an important part of the game is the human "battle of wits". It's true that with a weak program you can play on its known or anticipated weaknesses, but this simply interests me less than the psychology of a human opponent.

henryzz · 2014-07-18, 19:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian-E

For me an important part of the game is the human "battle of wits". It's true that with a weak program you can play on its known or anticipated weaknesses, but this simply interests me less than the psychology of a human opponent.

Fair enough. I quite like the feeling of beating a machine sometimes.

Brian-E · 2014-07-18, 20:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by henryzz

Fair enough. I quite like the feeling of beating a machine sometimes.

I guess I used to as well. I'll never forget the excitement of playing against one of the first commercially available chess computers back in around 1980. It couldn't play, but neither could I.

Needless to say, my lack of enthusiasm for your idea has no bearing on whether it will ultimately go ahead!

2014-07-17, 07:37	#189
gd_barnes "Gary" May 2007 Overland Park, KS 2²×3,011 Posts	Why would I look again? I've followed the game in detail from the beginning. I'll say no more now but I think quite a bit can be said about this particular situation when the game is done and I'm not referring to move analysis. Last fiddled with by gd_barnes on 2014-07-17 at 07:37

2014-07-17, 10:16	#190
LaurV Romulan Interpreter "name field" Jun 2011 Thailand 5·11²·17 Posts	Well, I didn't see any move, the Geckos still have few days up, and generally they have 7 days for each move, it is their business how they use these seven days, even if a move is forced, maybe they want to use this time to analyze further development in the game. It is their right. No hurry in our side. I am generally speaking, not for conditional moves. If we are going to brainstorm something, we better could "invent" some rules which forbid using of the computers, without influencing the game too much. For example we used to play correspondence with additional rules. Make a list of 50 or so rules which will totally screw up a computer program, and before the game starts, pick few (3 or 4) from the list and use them in the game. Ex: - pawns can move 2 squares any time, not only from the first line, but only once in their life (screwing up finals with pawns against horses or bishops, as the pawn could pass the guarded fields) - a pawn can overpass a blocking pawn (other specific piece?) once in its life (by jumping over it) - the horse can do a 2x2 move (as opposite of a "normal" 2x1 move) during the first x (5? 10?) moves (this totally screws up a "classical" opening). - king can move like a horse once (twice? etc) in its life - you are not allowed to re-take immediately (this is inspired from ko situations in go, so if one captures your piece, you have to find a stronger threat, so the opponent moves for the stronger threat, so you can capture, but this is kinda stupid, because is screwing up the game totally) - etc, I can produce a hundred of these idiocies in half hour, of course most will be stupid and unplayable, but few may turn out being quite intelligent. Contributions are welcomed. Then we vote (and motivate why) few of them (3-4) to be used in each game we start. The players will not be able to use any computer program, unless they can implement a lot of new things in an existent engine in a very short amount of time. Writing a chess engine to play bad is very easy, but to have a good program, one must use existent (strong) engines, and those are not easy to modify. Huh? make a new thread for crazy suggestions? Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2014-07-17 at 10:18

2014-07-17, 11:01	#192
LaurV Romulan Interpreter "name field" Jun 2011 Thailand 5·11²·17 Posts	That's the fun, to find the "right" set of rules which does not change the game, but screw up the AI. That is why there are 50, or more, and we "vote" for few of them. Taking the one rule with the blocked pawns, for example, this would not pose any problem for a human player, and additionally, how many times do you find blocked pawns in a real game? And if so, ho many times would be actually "better" to jump over it? This does not influence the game too much, but it is enough to have a single pawn blocked by other pawn, and all the "backtrack" of the engine is screwed up. You even don't need a "blocked pawn" on board, it can appear after few moves, the AI will discard all the branches which could derive from jumping over the pawn, and get lost doing "standard" chess analysis. Of course, most of the "rules" would be stupid and not applicable, but we can do this "exercise" (of proposing rules and talking about them, make a large list with the best of them) just for fun of doing it, and to see the outcome, without effectively playing a game. Later, we may want to "test" some of them by playing "new types" of chess. But that is another story. Related to the second part of the post, playing against a known engine, I don't believe any actual chess program can beat us, if we are allowed an opening book (from the web), "days" to think for each move, and a board to analyze. No way a computer could beat me under these circumstances... But you never know, and it will still be a lot of fun to try. Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2014-07-17 at 11:04

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Vote chess game 4: To be decided? Some chess variant will be interesting to consider with!	Raman	Chess	6	2016-12-06 06:50
Vote Chess: Game 4	Xyzzy	Chess	14	2015-11-12 20:54
Vote Chess: Game 3	Xyzzy	Chess	267	2015-10-30 09:34
Vote Chess game 1: the post snort'em	Brian-E	Chess	36	2014-01-23 16:22
Vote Chess: Game 1	henryzz	Chess	306	2013-07-08 18:29

2014-07-17, 10:37	#191
henryzz Just call me Henry "David" Sep 2007 Liverpool (GMT/BST) 17A8₁₆ Posts	Any of those rules would make the game not be chess which would spoil it for me. Even chess960 is taking it a bit far for me. I don't think I am revealing too much by saying there are two moves we are considering currently. For the next game I was thinking about suggesting that both teams join together to try to beat a strong chess engine(maybe crafty?). What do people think to that?

2014-07-18, 18:41	#194
henryzz Just call me Henry "David" Sep 2007 Liverpool (GMT/BST) 2³×757 Posts	36...Bxe7

2014-07-18, 18:50	#195
henryzz Just call me Henry "David" Sep 2007 Liverpool (GMT/BST) 2³·757 Posts	There are often ways of limiting a chess engine to make it so we could stand a chance of winning. We could give it a short amount of time per move or many chess engines have levels that we could use. Another alternative is my dad wrote a chess engine which I would guess is at a good level for us to play. I wouldn't suggest giving a chess engine 7 days per move. We wouldn't stand a chance then.

2014-07-18, 18:55	#196
Brian-E "Brian" Jul 2007 The Netherlands 2·11·149 Posts	For me an important part of the game is the human "battle of wits". It's true that with a weak program you can play on its known or anticipated weaknesses, but this simply interests me less than the psychology of a human opponent.