- Joined
- 02 Aug 11
- Moves
- 2648
aOriginally posted by greenpawn34Ah I am glad you got it 🙂
I think I have it.
A player sees his postion evaluated by a box and plays a move based
on that evaluation.
I'm thinking depending on the playing strength of the player they will see
that they are winning/losing and play accordingly.
The random number aspect will have the player distrusting the number
and play the board.
Sorry to bring ...[text shortened]... ing we already know.
Good players evaluate chess positions better than weaker players.
Its not really about cheating or not it is about being able to capitalise on a good positoin IF you know about it.
And yes it would be VERY interesting in testing this but as said before it is probably not practical. However, different chess games have addressed this problem by allowing you to play while given some hints during every move (the granularity of which you can adjust).
Personally, I think it depends on the level as you said (or perhaps the level difference between the two). I can play Fritz with various hints and will still lose.
I might play someone my level and perhaps capitalise on an oportunity 1 game out of 10 say. For an experience player the engine score will just be reduntant noise 🙂
So yes. I totally agree with your last sentence. The question is what can weaker players do (or even learn!) given an expert opinion on the position evaluation.
P.S.
What's the yoghurt dispute? Never heard of it 🙂
- Joined
- 02 Aug 11
- Moves
- 2648
You know what. One might actually be able to test this with an engine shootout.
Normally you can adjust their evaluation weights. Get one to continuously overestimate its position and the other to under-estimate its position etc.
And then try a few hundred games and see what happens.
Of course the good thing when dealing with computer experiments is that you can isolate a specific parameter, namely the position evaluation.
Because one thing is certain with engines. No matter if the under or over estimate their position they will always find the best move for that score (depth permiting).
Most low, medium level human players cannot. So there is an extra degree of experimental uncertainty with humans.
But anyway. We are drifting off course. Just to conclude for today because I am talking too much 🙂....
The outcome of such theoretical discussions and experiments might be position evaluation skills is much more useful than being able to find the best and strongest move. So perhaps for a novice player the emphasis might be on acquiring positional and strategic skills rather than tactics only (of course a combination is much better).
I guess the ultimate example is GM vs machine. Where the former is better at long strategic play and position evaluated also in the long term, whereas the latter is an expert in finding the strongest moves and short term position evaluation. Who wins? Well.....lets wait and see.
That's all folks. Still I am interested in your opinions on this matter.
Originally posted by greenpawn34thanks for taking time to clarify these things.
I think I have it.
A player sees his postion evaluated by a box and plays a move based
on that evaluation.
I'm thinking depending on the playing strength of the player they will see
that they are winning/losing and play accordingly.
The random number aspect will have the player distrusting the number
and play the board.
Sorry to bring c ...[text shortened]... ing we already know.
Good players evaluate chess positions better than weaker players.
It was claimed Karpov was getting sent different flavoured yoghurts
depending on the postion.
The Korchnoi camp claimed Karpov would give some signal.
(I need your assistance.)....highly unlikely and a total joke.
An orange yoghurt = go for the win, Blueberry it's a draw. etc.
Copied and pasted from:
http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/78kk$$01.htm
On the 25th move of game 2, a waiter delivered a tray with a glass of violet
colored yogurt to Karpov. After the game Leeuwerik sent a letter to Schmid
protesting the yogurt. 'It is clear that a cunningly arranged distribution of edible
items to one player during the game, emanating from one delegation or the other,
could convey a kind of code message'. Although the letter was almost certainly
tongue-in-cheek, Baturinsky took it seriously and suggested that the binoculars
Leeuwerik used during the game might also convey a coded message to Korchnoi.
By the time a waiter delivered another tray holding yogurt to Karpov on the 17th
move of game 3, the first incident had been blown out of proportion by both
Baturinsky and Leeuwerik. A few days later the jury met and agreed that Karpov
could receive a beverage at a fixed time and that Schmid would be notified before
the game if it would not be a violet colored yogurt.
Chess Players. 🙂
Originally posted by greenpawn34As I understand it Najdorf used to walk up to people mid-game and ask other players "am I better?"
You cannot leave an OTB game and ask someone if they think you are better
or worse. Even without any analyse seeking an answer would be cheating.
Getting told you are better or worse (play for a win, play for the draw) is
also cheating. It's what the yoghurt dispute was all about in the 1978 Karpov
- Korchnoi match.
Just wanted to clear that bit up.
But I think I see where you are going.
I think the RNG could be easily spotted to be a fake, say in the first 3 moves of the Ruy Lopez after white plays 3.Bb5 and the thing is saying -5, a player would know something must be wrong with the 'engine'. So one relevant question here is would the players be aware of the possibility there could be a random number generator or an engine?
If not, I suppose a way around it would be to flash the 'score' in out of book positions where the evaluation is not well known. In this case, any decent player will have a hard time believing the engine in all but the strangest cases. As its score randomly changes + to - regardless of where the material is dropping etc., it would very soon become drastically obvious something is up with the 'engine'. For instance, if white were up a queen the RNG should still have equal chance of + or - score.
So I guess my point is that for a score to affect behavior in this way, it has to have some face validity. A genuine engine score does, a RNG does not. So I think it is quite clear a RNG would not have the same effect as a true engine score on behavior (even without an experiment).
The line of thought could go something like 'Oh I am up a queen as white and the score is -9, oh well I will play the mate anyway!'.
Even in a random sample this would occur, since at certain points the evaluation will be obvious, and the engine will be obvious nonsense (the extreme case being when there is a forced mate on the board). Or in a case where nothing has changed material wise in the position, say a quiet move was made and the score suddenly goes from 5 to -3, with white still up a rook and about to mate.
Najdorf was a famous (or infamous) in between move chatter.
"AM I better?", "Am I worse?" I don't know if he was ever warned.
I have his book and it has some brilliant games in it. Also a few tales
about him talking and getting and giving advice during a game in progress.
Amazing life story. Great chess player. By all accounts quite a character.
Would love to have met him.