Don wrote:bob wrote:Steve B wrote:bob wrote:
That will be an interesting test. Computers are, in general, horrible odds players. You can't keep exchanging a pair of pieces to win a pawn. You run out of pieces before you catch back up in material, leaving yourself lost.
thats exactly correct
i have played 6 games now against the same 2700 PC engine at R odds
the lower rated dedicated's(all 1700 range) have won 2 and drawn 4
i only saved 3 of the games(1 win- 2 draws)
i initially tried some games(about 6 or so) at "time odds" and "minor piece" odds but the dedicated's could not draw or win even one game
in each"R odds" game the Engine has usually won back material quickly enough but wound up either lost or hoplessly drawn due to the reduced material
thats what i suspect will happen in the Movei game coming up after this game (but it will be interesting to play against a different engine)
Steve
A human will think "OK, I am already objectively lost, so winning back a pawn is pointless. My goal right now is to not trade material and try to build up an attack to break thru, otherwise the endgame is lost completely." A program is going to win anything it can. If it can trade queens to wreck your pawn structure, it will, even though your rook advantage will nullify (and then some) any pawn structure weakness. But hey, it gave you 3 isolated pawns, even if it did give up all attacking chances.
This has been a hard idea to get across. When behind, trade pawns but not pieces, when ahead, trade pieces but not pawns. When we say "not pieces" we _really_ mean it, but to the programs it is just a weak suggestion, at best.
This same basic issue comes up in computer GO with the new and modern Monte Carlo Tree Search. Monte Carlo of course plays thousands of very fast games as an estimate of the value of the position. But in GO you can score wins and losses, or you can actually use the "degree" of the win by tallying up territory at the end of the game. In chess you either checkmate or you don't. But in Go you could win big or win small.
It turns out that to get the best results you need to simply tally up wins and losses. A big win is the same as a small win. When you score the Monte Carlo playouts in this way you get significantly better results.
There is one nasty side effect of doing this however is that if you have a game that is basically lost, the program see's the position as hopeless and will not play "normal" fighting moves. You could be losing by just 1 stone but the program doesn't care if it's 1 stone or 100 and it will go down without a fight.
From the program's point of view there are no good or bad moves because they all lose.
If a Monte Carlo Chess program were playing this game in Larry's place, it would see certain loss and would play like Terry McCracken, noticing all the over the board issues while being completely oblivious to the more important "opponent modeling" issues which define what heavy odds games are all about. It would basically say, "I'm dead lost" and it would roll over and die - not realizing what the real game is.
A thought experiment is to play a long chess match where points are scored based on the move number you checkmate your opponent on - the sooner you checkmate the more points you score. It's suddenly a different game, and the rules of chess are a subset of this game. A computer would have to be re-programmed in order to play this game well.
Don Daily you don't know what you're talking about by comparing me to a moronic computer program. That is not how I think, I'm not oblivious to any possibility and you should have realized I've seen both the computer's move/s and Larry's move/s! and the ideas why etc. behind Larry's play, more than just move prediction! I've not bothered with odd's games but that doesn't mean due to a negative attitude when I realize there's not much left to swindle the Connie with, Larry can't win and now it's at the stage he can't prevent losing as the program isn't weak enough!
Larry may resign shortly and for good reason he can't prevent what the Connie can do at this point and sees that he can't possibly resolve this problem, that vastly superior playing strength on his part can't alter the outcome in a way that he can stave of the inevitable. There is not likey going to be an ending and even if there is it will be so overwelming in favour for the Connie that there's only one logical and possible outcome realisticly no matter what swindles...which have virtually run out...Larry has in his bag of tricks. That is what odd's games are all about between superior strength by the one who gives them knowing the weaker opponent won't be able to utilize that extra power/material to survive.
This isn't the case in this position or this player at this stage. I think Larry could beat the Connie under QR odds handicap had he known what the Connie would do and select an opening based on that knowledge and slowly out maneuvered the Connie but unfortunately this is not the case here.
It's simply too obvious what the end result has to be here in this case knowing all the factors of both odds play the opponents and the position and what can and what can't be done!
It appears you're oblivious to the obvious and likely not an expert/master at chess.
Like it or not, Larry is not only lost he will lose and there's nothing that anyone says or does can change that now. It's too late and my pessimism is based on all the factors, not just the Connie is winning or that I've no concept of odds games!
I find your comments about me obnoxious and are based in ignorance and lack class.
