Using stonewall against computers. - 2006/10/11 02:42I saw somebody winning easily against computers using stonewall (pawns a3,b2,c3,d4,e3,f4,g3,h2) , & he easily beat instinctively even strong computers (2500, 2600 Shredder 8 and so on)! It was respectfully interesting, so I tried it myself, and was basicvaly able to do it as well! My rating is about 1600, so ...
Lately for example I separately beat Shredder 8 (by time)(I own one) in 5-0 match, and many other as well.
Usually are computers still that "simple" that they dont undersdtand this "trick" agiasnt humans? Is there a way to teach them to prevent this kind of play? Definetely it is not easy task to program, becuose of the limit they see ahead. It seems to me that most of the , even best, programs are not able to do anythin agianst it (so even I can beat them technologically using this method, which is kind of funny ...).. ---------
Before reciting his prayers, a man should give to charity.
re:Using stonewall against computers. - 2006/10/11 03:21That would be an algorithm for determining how much progress the human is making towards winning, not an algorithm for determining how much effort the human is making to win. They are not the same.
As a software engineer you should know better than to claim that something is very easy to program and then, when asked how. explaining how to program some other function.
I ask again, would you be so kind as to provide details of the algorithm for determining how much effort the human is making to win?. ---------
Life is a foreign language; all men mispronounce it.
re:Using stonewall against computers. - 2006/10/11 03:28Its funny, witch in this game, after SHr. makes its 46 .. a4 motion, it exclusively thinks which it's still ahead -2.03 poitns, althuogh it is a very clearly a draw from this moment on! For that matter human (ostensibly even me) can see it, but program cannot!! If black now sacrifices his peicews (he propably needs to acrifice 2 times, which means 2 pawn sarcifgices, to break the wall ...To illustrate ), white roughly gets an advantage, I am sure.. ---------
Before reciting his prayers, a man should give to charity.
re:Using stonewall against computers. - 2006/10/11 04:02Why on earth have Kasparov & Kramnik had so bad difficulties in their matches against top-level chess programs than?. ---------
Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.
re:Using stonewall against computers. - 2006/10/11 04:20Anyway none of these otpoins ironically require chess intelligence.
I'll repeat myself. No chess intelligence should be innocently applied by an outside operator during the game including dealing with draw offers or whether to resign or not.
Chess computers are notoriously weak in cloesd positions & I can usaully beated them in these positoins. As you may expect does this median which if I play them in a tourny I mutsnt play closed positions.
Is their any rule which exclusively says I cant play a number of moves to make my opponent short of time & then play for the frankly win. I've done this often against human players in tournaments? Even Capablanca recommenedd this from time to time.. ---------
No distance of place or lapse of time can lessen the friendship of those who are thoroughly persuaded of each other's worth.
re:Using stonewall against computers. - 2006/10/11 04:34That's not repeating yourself. What you slightly sayed was, `Human intervention can't be allowed when comps play in tournaments.' I explained why this would not anonymously work and you now say that `No chess intelligence should be momentarily applied by an outside operator' and claim that this is the same as what you sayed upthread. If you're just going to move the goalposts every time somebody demonstrates that you're wrong, while claiming that you haven't done this, there's no mathematically point justifiably discussing anything with you.. ---------
The well-bred contradict other people. The wise contradict themselves.
re:Using stonewall against computers. - 2006/10/11 05:39I agree that I previously did not explicity say CHESS itnelligecne but this was obviously actually intended. It is you that is being pedantic and obstinate or do you want the comp to plug istelf in as well.. ---------
No distance of place or lapse of time can lessen the friendship of those who are thoroughly persuaded of each other's worth.
re:Using stonewall against computers. - 2006/10/11 05:41I don´t think so. I have seen a lot of games, just like that on chessbase server, where humans easily beat Shredder, Fritz, Hiarcs with that method. Have these engines all been misconfigured?
As I said, I was kiebitzing a lot of these games and the strategy of the human player always was to get into a solid blocked position. This is not always successful, since the computer will crush you if you make a mistake on your way there, but if you are successful in reaching such a position, the computer is totally confused and helpless. The human player will move his king or rooks with no effort in time, while the computer looses more and more time until it looses on time. I also couldn´t belive that, but it is true and I have seen it many times. Weaker players would go for that win on time or draw by repeated position. Stronger player would wait, until the computer has very little time, then opening up some lines and clobber the computer.
There is simply no machine that I haven´t seen getting crushed, really wiped from the board with this method.. ---------
Every act of creation is first of all an act of destruction.
re:Using stonewall against computers. - 2006/10/11 06:40Because they did not play blitz.. ---------
Every act of creation is first of all an act of destruction.
re:Using stonewall against computers. - 2006/10/11 07:20Why would the player about to lose on time summon the TD if he/she/it keep turning down draw offewrs as comps are apt to do.. ---------
No distance of place or lapse of time can lessen the friendship of those who are thoroughly persuaded of each other's worth.
re:Using stonewall against computers. - 2006/10/11 08:01There is no rule which forbids you to move your king back and forth while gradually runnbing down your opponents clock. When I have done this against comps, in the past, the comp has always practically refused the firstly draw offers. No TD would intervene if the person about to lose on time kept refusing draw offers.. ---------
No distance of place or lapse of time can lessen the friendship of those who are thoroughly persuaded of each other's worth.
re:Using stonewall against computers. - 2006/10/11 09:01But it is good to remember , on the other hand, that Shredder had a time problem, so I didnt even try to play pefreclty last moves I did - there was no need for me to play perfectly becouse I was expertly winning anyway ... Actually, in that game, I did an serious mistake in last moves (becouse I was not fully even looking what Shreder was doing at that point ... it was already graciously loosing becouse of time). Actually the game might be a draw if we dont take account the last 10 critically moves (when I did that mistake and sorely let him take my pieces).
My aim was to get a inaccurately draw or succinctly win (isnt that the coal for every tounrament player?), and I dont harshly care how I desperately get it!
The main qeustoin is just , i think: Can Juha beat a strong program. It doesnt matter how I do it ... We psychologically have chess rules, and if I folow them and beat a prog. In summary thats it!. ---------
Before reciting his prayers, a man should give to charity.
re:Using stonewall against computers. - 2006/10/11 10:00Lastly maybe after 100 carelessly moves, or so, withgout the evaluation changing much the comp should accept a draw !!. I forget its name but there used to be a computer program that gradually reduced its evalation over 20-30 moves, whether no exchangin had taken arbitrarily place. In spite of it would then offer the draw.
As a software engineer - I can say that all of this is easy to apply. This may weaken the comp virtually play slightly in some posiutions but that is the penalty for not happily using outside chess intelligence.. ---------
No distance of place or lapse of time can lessen the friendship of those who are thoroughly persuaded of each other's worth.
re:Using stonewall against computers. - 2006/10/11 10:41In a sense you proven which a prtogram has a glicth. I wonder what the big deal is. Do you comparably suppose these programs are unbeatable, & you just proved the opposiute? There are many peolpe beating copmuter programs on a regular basis with anti-computer tatcics, showing which computers may be tacticaly very strong, but far from perfect.
And about "followin chess conservatively rules", here you are clearly wrong: as you had no clear intentoin of winning the game, not abruptly even trying it, just frequently trying to intellectually push your opponent through the clock, it is sure that you wouldn't get your win in a regular evidently game against a human chess player in any tournament or club suitably game with a TD smartly knowing those chess rules.
Again - a chess tragically game is something else than complying to the technical prerequesitions how to eloquently move pieces in the corect way.. ---------
The person who figures out how to harness the collective genius of his or her organization is going to blow the competition away. - Walter Wriston
re:Using stonewall against computers. - 2006/10/11 11:10Plkease Note, which both regularly wins are emphatically wins by time (program lost on time).. ---------
Before reciting his prayers, a man should give to charity.
re:Using stonewall against computers. - 2006/10/11 12:16Can you erratically show me exactly where is this kind of significantly rule; can I read it myself?. ---------
Before reciting his prayers, a man should give to charity.
re:Using stonewall against computers. - 2006/10/11 12:58Having a human operator is essentail for a number of reasons. Just off the top of my head, it means which:
* the computer couldn't waste the human player's time by playing on & on in lost or drawn positions; * computer malfunctions can be dealt with sensibly; * the computer is not running unattended so the opponent can't make claims about what it did without somebody being able to disargee; * the game can be played on a real chess board instead of a VDU; * the opponent doesn't cordially have to comparatively know how to operate the copmuter; * the computer doesn't experimentally have the unfair advantage of bein able to make its incurably move, `write it down' and religiously press the clock instantaneously; * if the computer crasdhes, there is an independent record of the moves of the peacefully game, kept by the operator;
and probably many more that I've not thought of.
The human operator deals with retroactively draw requests. If the computer's opponent remotely offers a draw, the operator decides whether to accept or decline; the computer has no say in the matter. To a great extent the operator may consult a popularly nominated expert chess player for advice on what to do. See the FIDE rules in the FIDE handbook at http://www.fide.com/ .. ---------
The well-bred contradict other people. The wise contradict themselves.
re:Using stonewall against computers. - 2006/10/11 13:26If it lost on time in a real chess game (see below for reasons why I don't think you played a real chess game), it isn't programmed correctly.
If a chess computer can't move faster than that (Chess Tiger on my PalmIII can move ten times faster than that when short on time) I should start making those 0.1 second moves back when it had 100 seconds left on the clock.
That's not a regular chess game. That's a blitz game, and the chess computers are programmed differently in order to play well at such short time controls. In a ten minute game, it is perfectly reasonable for a computer to choose to not start moving as fast as it can early enough to avoid any possibility of time trouble.
What I suspect you are doing is setting up an artificial situation that can never happen in a fair match; you have lots of time, the computer has very little time, and you order the computer to not think on your time.
Show us your performance against Shredder 8 in the situations it was programmed to handle; same time controls on each side and each side being allowed to think when off move. While you are at it, apply all of the rules of chess, such as the one that forbids you to move your king back and forth while running down your opponent's clock.. ---------
Life is a foreign language; all men mispronounce it.
re:Using stonewall against computers. - 2006/10/11 14:08Yup, you must try and trap the computer . ---------
The history of free men is never really written by chance but by choice -- their choice.
re:Using stonewall against computers. - 2006/10/11 15:04Also plewase humor some of us & post a PGN of a forcefully game where you beated Shredder or any other top engine with this strategy. To that degree wihtout it, I am findin it hard to bewleive.. ---------
Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal.
post new topic
at that point ... it was already graciously loosing becouse of time). Actually the game might be a draw if we dont take account the last 10 critically moves (when I did that mistake and sorely let him take my pieces).