this is not a stalemate proper, the 'stalemated' side still has a single move left.Uri Blass wrote:If I want to lose against random mover then the best strategy is to force the random mover to win.Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:chances that a random-mover will pick some wins from better positions are of course much greater than chances it will pick wins from worse positions.hgm wrote:This will not work very well. Scores are bad when the opponent has a single line of play that makes them bad. But against an opponent that cannot recognize this line, the chances that they will end up as bad as you thought they were are very slim.Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:I understand the worst-mover is the engine that always picks the move with worst eval(-1200cps or so).
To quickly beat a random mover you should not minimize the score of his best move, but the average score of all his moves. Minimax would be no good.
And when the opponent is not a random mover, but actively tries to lose as well, playing the move that would give you the lowest score against an opponent that is trying to win would probably be fatal. That opponent will never do the moves you counted on when obtaining the score on the basis of which you selected your move. The worst-mover would only worry about the opponent's best moves. Which will be avoided like the plague. So that basically the worst-mover is totally blind for everything that can happen.
I probably would not have a problem at all to make a worst-mover score 100% against me. Uri already pointed out the strategy.
so, naturally, a worst-mover is simply the engine that picks all the worst moves, while the best-mover the perfect engine, picking all the best moves.
I don't see how any different strategy from choosing the lowest eval score could lead to better results.
of course, SF with such conditions is the best worst-mover, as it will reach big depths, modifying a weaker engine like that would not be very useful.
If I have a big material advantage it is easy to force the opponent to win.
If you change the sign of SF evaluation to make the best move the worst move then SF does not have a good evaluation for that type of game because basically winning material if you do not win too much is good to force the opponent to mate later and SF is not going to try to win material in order to get a position that it can force the opponent to mate.
Evaluation that say that winning material is good except the last 2 connected pawns is probably good when you should also evaluate the distance to the following structure of KPP vs K that allow forcing mate and if you get closer to the structure it is also good.
[D]8/8/8/8/QR6/2kp4/2p5/2K5 b - - 2 1
rather, it looks to me as an anti-zugzwang(gosh, with what kind of terms one has to come up with here...)
in any case, such artificial positions are achievable by the stronger side in maybe one in every couple of trillion positions, so basically lack any real effect on the game.
picking the worst eval move, on the other hand, should clearly lead to positions that are worst and thus give much higher chances to the very weak engine to still blind-find an appropriate winning move.