Timeline for Is there an engine that finds the best "practical" move?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 18, 2021 at 1:43 | vote | accept | Ari | ||
| Jan 18, 2021 at 1:42 | answer | added | Ari | timeline score: 3 | |
| Oct 5, 2019 at 7:09 | comment | added | Savage47 | ddunn-Completely disagree. An onside kick is typically made because the situation favors it. Onside kicks are recovered about 11% so that means they are almost always used where the chance of winning is less than 11% The exceptions are rare.OP is asking about specific situation where he can 'invite' the opponent to go wrong. It would be more analogous to something like a zone blitz. | |
| Oct 5, 2019 at 7:04 | comment | added | Savage47 | Paul- I disagree. Poker is largely percentages. | |
| Oct 5, 2019 at 7:00 | answer | added | Savage47 | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 4, 2019 at 16:34 | comment | added | corsiKa | Wait a minute... you're not trying to make an engine that lets you cheat online without being noticed, are you? Because that's very much one possible side effect of such an engine. | |
| Oct 4, 2019 at 11:33 | comment | added | ddunn801 | As an analogy, in American football you onside kick because it gives you a (slim) opportunity to score quickly even though the expected result would put you worse off. | |
| Oct 4, 2019 at 11:32 | comment | added | ddunn801 | One way to think about this is that you're looking to quantify a different objective function. When you're losing, you don't want to just minimize how much you're losing by (who cares if you lose by a centipawn or a queen). Instead, you want to minimize how much you're losing by, subject to there still being a line that your opponent could reasonably fall for. You might quantify "reasonably fall for" by counting "only" moves or situations where only the top move (or two) continue their advantage, but other moves lead to your having the advantage. | |
| Oct 4, 2019 at 10:13 | comment | added | Paul | This reminds me of poker. I think most pokerbots always play practical moves instead of assuming a Nash equilibrium and trying to play theoretical best moves. | |
| Oct 4, 2019 at 6:35 | comment | added | user541686 | Seems you want something closer to expectimax than minimax? | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 16:27 | comment | added | Akavall | Very interesting question, but I think implementing something like this could be difficult because "practical", could be very different depending on the situation. For example, would the same move be equally practical against an opponent 200 points above and 200 points below? What about classical game vs. blitz game? | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 12:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackChess/status/1179727811063484416 | ||
| Oct 3, 2019 at 9:32 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Oct 3, 2019 at 4:16 | answer | added | Ari | timeline score: 7 | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 1:36 | history | edited | Ari | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 13 characters in body
|
| Oct 3, 2019 at 1:35 | answer | added | Allure | timeline score: 26 | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 1:30 | review | First posts | |||
| Oct 3, 2019 at 7:16 | |||||
| Oct 3, 2019 at 1:26 | history | asked | Ari | CC BY-SA 4.0 |