91–100 of 158 posts
I'm a novice player but I reached a stalemate in my first game. I am not a big fan of the graphics, they're really really cool but I made at least two big mistakes because I misread the pieces - and now I have a headache :D
Yeah, the pieces are a bit illegible. I accidentally moved my Queen instead of castling, which is when I quit. Otherwise pretty impressive
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What op probably meant was that the engine knows no theory, but can See when something can be taken and can think a few steps ahead. Not sure if I agree completly, but since you can win in under 10 moves simply focusing on an attack in the king I know what he means (wasn't quite a fools mate, but couldn't protect the Kings side) I think that a 12 year old would play Mord reckless and would make more obvious mistakes.…
Yeah, just tried a fool's mate! It didn't /quite/ work, but pressing on still led to a very early mate, after dealing with an inconvenient pawn. (I think about 15 moves total?)
I expected it to play like Ed's Chess on DOS, which I always had trouble beating. IIRC that engine looks 3-4 moves ahead usually, but 6-7 moves ahead when it needs to. No idea how big the equivalent JS would be.
I'm a novice player but I reached a stalemate in my first game. I am not a big fan of the graphics, they're really really cool but I made at least two big mistakes because I misread the pieces - and now I have a headache :D
Nice work! I'm about 1850 in Lichess blitz, and it played at the level of an earnest 12 year old, which is actually meant as a compliment. It got crazy with its kingside pawns in the opening (no book knowledge), lost material pretty steadily and was checkmated down a queen, bishop and two pawns by move 25. But it developed some pieces sensibly, made obvious recaptures and was not reckless about king safety. It avoide…
My problem with this is that the colors make it hard to see the board. I get caught off by missing a long attack vector or a simple exchange. But this is overall an amazing accomplishment. I've played several good games with it so far.
Nice work! I'm about 1850 in Lichess blitz, and it played at the level of an earnest 12 year old, which is actually meant as a compliment. It got crazy with its kingside pawns in the opening (no book knowledge), lost material pretty steadily and was checkmated down a queen, bishop and two pawns by move 25. But it developed some pieces sensibly, made obvious recaptures and was not reckless about king safety. It avoide…
Anti-computer tactics in chess: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-computer_tactics
EDIT: GothamChess used a similar system to defeat a bot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5MD6hn5PgI (from 1:59)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, just tried a fool's mate! It didn't /quite/ work, but pressing on still led to a very early mate, after dealing with an inconvenient pawn. (I think about 15 moves total?)
I settled for the second trick newcomers learn -- forking the Queen and the Rook with the Knight. Easy win being up a Rook and Pawn to a Knight, with the black's King uncastled and in the open. I expected it to play like Ed's Chess on DOS, which I always had trouble beating. IIRC that engine looks 3-4 moves ahead usually, but 6-7 moves ahead when it needs to. No idea how big the equivalent JS would be.
In GOFAI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_artificial_intelligen...) there's a clear pattern where "intelligence" in abstract strategy games represents, in part, being able to prune game trees well without having to search them exhaustively. In some cases that means having a good evaluation function for positions, and in other cases having a cleverer search strategy in another way.
Thinking about this made me realize that it's not just impressive that this program plays decently while being tiny, but especially that it plays decently and quickly while being tiny.
Sharing other people's amazement that such a tiny amount of code plays so well (I'm an inexperienced, infrequent player and it beat me once and drew once), I was pondering that there's no absolute reason to think that small programs inherently must play games poorly. For many abstract strategy games, you could write an explicit game tree search in a relatively small amount of code and it would, in principle, play per…
Yeah I wonder if there are subfields of chess programing that optimize for that, something like "quality of engine per unit code size".