• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Beating the computer at Chess?

Mai72

Mai72

Lifer
The computer is a cheating POS. I must have played about 30 games so far at level 11. The highest is 25. The app is titled "3D Chess Game." I've lost every game.

8c94052b17d363a15110d64f0ae252d5.gif


Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
 
The problem is computers don't make mistakes. They can play poorly depending on the skill level selected, but they won't make blunders. If you win solely by exploiting the mistakes of others, you'll have a bad time with a computer.
 
Mai72 said:
The computer is a cheating POS. I must have played about 30 games so far at level 11. The highest is 25. The app is titled "3D Chess Game." I've lost every game.

8c94052b17d363a15110d64f0ae252d5.gif


Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That just means you are nowhere near as good as you think you are.
 
Just load up another computer program and use that program to tell you what moves to play against your other computer program...Ai vs. Ai lol.

No but seriously, I hear you. It's so damn frustrating but it helps and when you finally do beat it, damn, feels good man!
 
I noticed that it seems as though the computer "learns" - at least for the version of chess on an iMac pro. Without changing the computer's level of play, I crushed it in one particular opening. Now, at the same level of play, the games are getting longer and longer, and while the first 15-20 moves are the same, the computer isn't making the same moves that lead to its demise in previous games. It's as if the computer is slowly getting as good as I am, to where now, with that same opening, I'm ready to resign nearly half of the games.
 
Lol reminds me when I coded a battleship game in college. I made sure to code it in such a way that the AI can't actually cheat, and it didn't. (ex: the code did not just look at where you put your ships). It would do a somewhat smart pattern to try to find your ships and then it would figure out the best odds for the direction and then take it out from there. Basically trying to use as little turns as possible to cover the map. If it already got your "2" ship then it knew that there is no point in looking at areas that only have 2 open slots, for example. It would also try to find intersections where you can rule out multiple spots at once. I could barely win against my own AI lol.

Though I'm not sure if my algorithm really qualifies as AI, it did not really learn.
 
Red Squirrel said:
Lol reminds me when I coded a battleship game in college. I made sure to code it in such a way that the AI can't actually cheat, and it didn't. (ex: the code did not just look at where you put your ships). It would do a somewhat smart pattern to try to find your ships and then it would figure out the best odds for the direction and then take it out from there. Basically trying to use as little turns as possible to cover the map. If it already got your "2" ship then it knew that there is no point in looking at areas that only have 2 open slots, for example. It would also try to find intersections where you can rule out multiple spots at once. I could barely win against my own AI lol.

Though I'm not sure if my algorithm really qualifies as AI, it did not really learn.
Click to expand...

Coded mastermind in highschool and for every combination it would eliminate a giant swash of the combinations that did not fit the already known facts. Lucky guess was the only way I could beat it.
 
Last edited:
Mr Spock beat the Computer at Chess 4 times in a row.

COMPUTER: Bishop, half level right.
MCCOY: Well, I had to see it to believe it.
SPOCK: Explain.
MCCOY: They're about to lop off the captain's professional head, and you're sitting here playing chess with the computer.
SPOCK: That is true.
MCCOY: Mister Spock, you're the most cold-blooded man I've ever known.
SPOCK: Why, thank you, Doctor. I've just won my fourth game.
MCCOY: That's impossible.
SPOCK: Observe for yourself. Rook to king's pawn four.
COMPUTER: Bishop, half level right.
SPOCK: Now, this is the computer's move. And now mine. (takes the bishop) Checkmate. Mechanically, the computer's flawless. Therefore, logically, its report of the captain's guilt is infallible. I could not accept that, however.
MCCOY: So you tested the programme bank.
SPOCK: Exactly. I programmed it myself for chess some months ago. The best I should have been able to attain was a draw.
MCCOY: Well, why are you just sitting there?
SPOCK: Transporter room, stand by. We're beaming down.
Click to expand...

:awe:
 
Hell...I've had issues trying to beat the computer at Monopoly!

This is John Connor. If you're listening to this, I suck at computer games run by AI.
 
Last edited:
I remember the old EA sports games where you could outshoot the other team, 60-2 and still lose the game 1-0. Yeah, no funny business there.
 
Chess is a completely deterministic game; there is no element of chance in the rules, unlike backgammon for example. So there are really only two things necessary for a great chess program: a heuristic for measuring how close a given position is to a win, and the ability to search the tree of future moves and apply that heuristic to the possible positions. The program can then min-max it's way to victory. The game tree is extremely deep, but even searching a few hundred levels down can yield pretty impressive results against all but the best players. That's why chess programs have been pretty good for a long time, and became unbeatable when computer hardware advanced to the point that the tree could be searched very deeply. In short: chess is really a pretty easy problem.
 
chess engines have increased in strength a lot over the years. Today Komodo and Stockfish are the top engines. Chess still remains an unsolveable game, there simply isn't enough processing power to solve it, so there is a lot of theory as to which position is best.

Komodo, Stockfish and others continue to refine their algorithms to try to be at the top of the list of chess engine strength.

Stockfish is open source and so you can get it without cost. If you really want to see the chess program you're playing against beat, grab a copy of Arena http://www.playwitharena.com/?Download

and load it with Stockfish https://stockfishchess.org/

Here are a few games Komodo played against GMs https://www.chess.com/news/komodo-vs-humanity-nakamura-will-give-it-a-go-6514

Rybka use to be the top engine a long time ago. Check out this game against a GM with Rybka. Its a long game but go to the end, it's pretty funny. The GM promotes his pawns to all bishops https://www.chess.com/news/gm-nakamura-tries-to-prove-he-is-no-stockfish-7982

Here is an explanation of Stockfishs algorithm https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-c...currently-the-highest-rated-chess-engine-ever

And if you become interested in creating one https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/
 
Last edited:
Loooong ago I had a Risk version on my Amiga 500. I played it against AI regularly, and it had a cheat mode that could be turned on in case you desparately wanted to win. But I didn't like it, so I kept it turned off. At one point I was winning badly when I noticed all of a sudden one of my countries (and the one with the second most units in it) switch colour. Apparently not just human players could decide to cheat, the computer could do so as well!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top