Anti-Human feature

[reflectionofpower]

How about a "Let's Check" type algorithm that auto detects if a human is playing and would auto switch to anti- human mode on the fly.?

I see what you are saying but how would it auto detect it? I think the simple concepts of Rebel & CT 2007 would suffice and then go from there and augment them with newer ideas.

[AdminX]

How about a "Let's Check" type algorithm that auto detects if a human is playing and would auto switch to anti- human mode on the fly.?

I see what you are saying but how would it auto detect it? I think the simple concepts of Rebel & CT 2007 would suffice and then go from there and augment them with newer ideas.

It would check the statistics for number of computer moves played, sort of how it's also used as a tool to help detect cheaters. Only difference is, if a high number of weak (Non-Computer) moves are being played it would switch to human mode. Just an idea of course, not even sure if it is doable from a technical standpoint. Since Let's Check appears to really be more of a statistical tool.

It could also keep track of percentage let's say -1.00 moves and then self adjust it's play to anti-human. Not sure how much overhead it would take on the engine.

[reflectionofpower]

How about a "Let's Check" type algorithm that auto detects if a human is playing and would auto switch to anti- human mode on the fly.?

I see what you are saying but how would it auto detect it? I think the simple concepts of Rebel & CT 2007 would suffice and then go from there and augment them with newer ideas.

It would check the statistics for number of computer moves played, sort of how it's also used as a tool to help detect cheaters. Only difference is, if a high number of weak (Non-Computer) moves are being played it would switch to human mode. Just an idea of course, not even sure if it is doable from a technical standpoint. Since Let's Check appears to really be more of a statistical tool.

It could also keep track of percentage let's say -1.00 moves and then self adjust it's play to anti-human. Not sure how much overhead it would take on the engine.

Makes sense. I could tell by looking at your avatar that you really thought about this.

[APassionForCriminalJustic]

Good idea, but does not work - SF with an antihuman feature would be simply a predecessor version, weaker in strength.

Same about Komodo.

SF with very big contempt or something like that is simply Crafty or an engine of similar strength. The further you raise the contempt, or introduce funny antipositional features, the weaker the engine becomes.

Engine should not play like that, while losing strength, but simply fix their positional problems over time.

Besides, not all antihuman features work against every human: for example, they would not work against Tal, Shirov, etc.

Other, even more important thing to consider: a knowledgeable human player can of course adapt over time to an antihuman strategy, so that he capitalises on most engine mistakes.

Changing the engine while losing strength is not the way to go, but rather eliminating engine deficiencies.

Humans are pathetically weak versus engines, so who cares if the engine looses strength if contempt is changed to create a more aggressive engine (this is why Larry suggested perhaps having two Komodos). You always talk as if engines are some inferior piece of code; they are hundreds upon hundreds of ELO better than any human on this planet including yourself. Humans do not capitalize on engines' mistakes. They do not even belong in the same arena as the engines. Centaur players, who are really just engine players, do not count.

The closed-position phenomenon is lame anyways. I bet that you will see less and less of this as engines continue to improve, and deeper searches are effectively achieved.

[reflectionofpower]

Good idea, but does not work - SF with an antihuman feature would be simply a predecessor version, weaker in strength.

Same about Komodo.

SF with very big contempt or something like that is simply Crafty or an engine of similar strength. The further you raise the contempt, or introduce funny antipositional features, the weaker the engine becomes.

Engine should not play like that, while losing strength, but simply fix their positional problems over time.

Besides, not all antihuman features work against every human: for example, they would not work against Tal, Shirov, etc.

Other, even more important thing to consider: a knowledgeable human player can of course adapt over time to an antihuman strategy, so that he capitalises on most engine mistakes.

Changing the engine while losing strength is not the way to go, but rather eliminating engine deficiencies.

Humans are pathetically weak versus engines, so who cares if the engine looses strength if contempt is changed to create a more aggressive engine (this is why Larry suggested perhaps having two Komodos). You always talk as if engines are some inferior piece of code; they are hundreds upon hundreds of ELO better than any human on this planet including yourself. Humans do not capitalize on engines' mistakes. They do not even belong in the same arena as the engines. Centaur players, who are really just engine players, do not count.

The closed-position phenomenon is lame anyways. I bet that you will see less and less of this as engines continue to improve, and deeper searches are effectively achieved.

well said

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Good idea, but does not work - SF with an antihuman feature would be simply a predecessor version, weaker in strength.

Same about Komodo.

SF with very big contempt or something like that is simply Crafty or an engine of similar strength. The further you raise the contempt, or introduce funny antipositional features, the weaker the engine becomes.

Engine should not play like that, while losing strength, but simply fix their positional problems over time.

Besides, not all antihuman features work against every human: for example, they would not work against Tal, Shirov, etc.

Other, even more important thing to consider: a knowledgeable human player can of course adapt over time to an antihuman strategy, so that he capitalises on most engine mistakes.

Changing the engine while losing strength is not the way to go, but rather eliminating engine deficiencies.

Humans are pathetically weak versus engines, so who cares if the engine looses strength if contempt is changed to create a more aggressive engine (this is why Larry suggested perhaps having two Komodos). You always talk as if engines are some inferior piece of code; they are hundreds upon hundreds of ELO better than any human on this planet including yourself. Humans do not capitalize on engines' mistakes. They do not even belong in the same arena as the engines. Centaur players, who are really just engine players, do not count.

The closed-position phenomenon is lame anyways. I bet that you will see less and less of this as engines continue to improve, and deeper searches are effectively achieved.

So what is our purpose in life as computer chess activists/enthusiasts?

Browsing through games we do not understand and counting percentage point scores?

[reflectionofpower]

Good idea, but does not work - SF with an antihuman feature would be simply a predecessor version, weaker in strength.

Same about Komodo.

SF with very big contempt or something like that is simply Crafty or an engine of similar strength. The further you raise the contempt, or introduce funny antipositional features, the weaker the engine becomes.

Engine should not play like that, while losing strength, but simply fix their positional problems over time.

Besides, not all antihuman features work against every human: for example, they would not work against Tal, Shirov, etc.

Other, even more important thing to consider: a knowledgeable human player can of course adapt over time to an antihuman strategy, so that he capitalises on most engine mistakes.

Changing the engine while losing strength is not the way to go, but rather eliminating engine deficiencies.

Humans are pathetically weak versus engines, so who cares if the engine looses strength if contempt is changed to create a more aggressive engine (this is why Larry suggested perhaps having two Komodos). You always talk as if engines are some inferior piece of code; they are hundreds upon hundreds of ELO better than any human on this planet including yourself. Humans do not capitalize on engines' mistakes. They do not even belong in the same arena as the engines. Centaur players, who are really just engine players, do not count.

The closed-position phenomenon is lame anyways. I bet that you will see less and less of this as engines continue to improve, and deeper searches are effectively achieved.

So what is our purpose in life as computer chess activists/enthusiasts?

Browsing through games we do not understand and counting percentage point scores?

Arguing like we are now and learning on the way.

[Dirt]

It would check the statistics for number of computer moves played, sort of how it's also used as a tool to help detect cheaters. Only difference is, if a high number of weak (Non-Computer) moves are being played it would switch to human mode.

I think all it really needs is to avoid closed games if the computer is ahead. Perhaps this could be done with a bonus for trading pawns.