Check out Janggi (Korean Chess), our featured variant for November, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Single Comment

Piece Values[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Derek Nalls wrote on Mon, May 26, 2008 02:54 PM UTC:
I am slightly relieved and surprised that Joker80 measurably improves the
quality of its moves as a function of time or plies completed over a range
of speed chess tournaments.  Nonetheless, completing games of CRC (where a
long, close, well-played game can require more than 80 moves per player)
in 0:24 minutes - 36 minutes does NOT qualify as long or even, moderate
time controls.  In the case of your longest 36-minute games, with an example total of 160 moves, that allows just 13.5 seconds per move per player.  In fact, that is an extremely short time by any serious standards.  

I consider 10 minutes per move a moderate time that produces results of
marginal, unreliable quality and 60-90 minutes per move a long time that
produces results of acceptable, reliable quality.  Ask Reinhard Scharnagl or ET about the longest time per move they have used testing openings with their programs playing 'Unmentionable Chess'- 24 hours per move!

It is noteworthy that you are now resorting to playing dirty by using the
'exclusivist argument' that essentially 'since I am not a computer
chess programmer, I cannot possibly know what I am talking about when I
dare criticize an important working of your Joker80 program'.  What you
fail to take into account is that I am a playtester with more experience
than you at truly long time controls.  If you will not listen to what I am
trying to tell you, then why will you not listen to Scharnagl?  After all,
he is also a computer chess programmer with a lot of knowledge in
important subject matters (such as mathematics).

You really should not be laughing.  This is a serious problem.  Your
sarcastic reaction does nothing to reassure my trust or confidence that
you will competently investigate it, confirm it and fix it.

Now, please do not misconstrue my remarks?  My intent is not to overstate
the problem.  I realize Joker80 in its present form is not a totally
random 'woodpusher'.  It would not be able to win any short time control
tournaments if that were the case.  In fact, I believe you when you state
that you have not experienced any problems with it but ... I think this is
strictly because you have not done any truly long time control playtesting with it.

You must decide upon and define the best primary function for your Joker80
program:

1.  To pinpoint the single, very best move available from any position. 
[Ideally, repeats could produce an identical move.]

OR

2.  To produce a different move from any position upon most repeats. 
[At best, by randomly choosing amongst a short list of the best available
moves.]

These two objectives are mutually exclusive.  It is impossible and
self-contradictory for a program to somehow accomplish both.  Virtually
every AI game developer in the world except you chooses #1 as preferable
to #2 by a long shot in terms of the move quality produced on average.  

If you do not even commit your AI program to TRYING to find the single
best move available because you think variety is just a whole lot more
interesting and fun, then it will be soft competition at truly long time
controls facing other quality AI programs that are frequently-sometimes
pinpointing the single, best move available and playing it against you.