# How do they "Dumb Down" Chess Programs? **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [May 11, 2009, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-they-dumb-down-chess-programs/496096 "2009-05-11T22:55:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ajb867](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f14d63/32.png) [@ajb867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ajb867)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-they-dumb-down-chess-programs/496096/21 "2009-05-13T07:51:41Z")
I read through this thread but must of glossed over the answer I was looking for. I was playing a computer which had me dominated material wise. I’m talking a complete blow out, however I continued on. Then I randomly threw a pawn forward and the computer captured a piece with his king making it a mate in one situation :eek: So I won… but what would make the computer activate the self destruct button like that? 😃 The computer was rated at 1190 ---
**Author:** ![ajb867](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f14d63/32.png) [@ajb867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ajb867)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-they-dumb-down-chess-programs/496096/22 "2009-05-13T08:04:40Z")
Ok it seems I exaggerated the computer’s material advantage but it was nothing to sneeze at 😃 The computer clearly chose defeat by making this next move is the point I’m trying to illustrate. Here is the position, its white to move (the computer). He captured the pawn with his king resulting in instant death. [http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/1039/computersuicide.jpg](http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/1039/computersuicide.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-they-dumb-down-chess-programs/496096/23 "2009-05-13T10:20:23Z")
> [@SiXSwordS](#): > > My bitter jealousy remains and my smiley has darkened. :mad: > Sounds like a good gig. It is! > [@SiXSwordS](#): > > Thank You. I would. I’d like to have some time to play, so this week and weekend are probably out. > > I should make it clear that when I say I play several games at level 4 on CT I do end up taking moves back almost every game. That has to do in part with the fact that I know I can. But, in the end it means I’m really not very good. (If it would help, I could include one of my own games against CT LVL 4) I was thinking of setting up a thread (so people could watch) and having no time limit. You analyse as much as you like, then post whenever you like. Let me know if you agree and I’ll set the thread up. > [@SiXSwordS](#): > > Thanks. I’ll play them out tonight. > Why did you play on LVL 9 when you were Black? Well Chess Titan plays considerably slower on level 10. So I was going to give a game at level 9 - but then I remembered I’d promised a win at level 10. So I played two games. > [@Chronos](#): > > Well, how would you describe it? The computer did not, in fact, show mercy, being a machine incapable of mercy, and even if it were capable, noticing that move and not taking it would probably be insulting. And by not showing mercy, it did in fact defeat Kramnik. Usually a ‘merciless defeat’ is where a player has the advantage throughout and never gives his opponent any hope. Since Kramnik was beating the computer for most of the game, then blundered allowing a draw, then blundered again allowing a mate, I would call the computer ‘lucky’. The computer was not in control of events until the final move of the game! > [@Chronos](#): > > Oh, and the opening will never be a tablebase ending: It simply isn’t possible, even theoretically, to construct a large enough table. If you used every single subatomic particle in the entire Universe to represent a bit in your table, that’d be just about enough data storage to store a tablebase about 50 moves deep. I’m sure **glee** could tell us the length of the longest chess game on record, but I’m certain that it’s a lot more than 50 moves. There’s been the odd game lasting over 200 moves (usually they’re boring!), but certainly a 60 move game comes along in almost every tournament. > [@ajb867](#): > > I read through this thread but must of glossed over the answer I was looking for. > I was playing a computer which had me dominated material wise. I’m talking a complete blow out, however I continued on. Then I randomly threw a pawn forward and the computer captured a piece with his king making it a mate in one situation :eek: > > So I won… but what would make the computer activate the self destruct button like that? 😃 > > The computer was rated at 1190 Well 1190 is ‘weak club player’ strength, but you’d still expect any computer to see mate in one! Did you have any special settings? (Otherwise the computer is winning easily after Kg1-h1.) ---
**Author:** ![ajb867](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f14d63/32.png) [@ajb867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ajb867)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-they-dumb-down-chess-programs/496096/24 "2009-05-13T11:41:30Z")
No special settings. I often notice this same computer will attack me so I lose material but allows me to back mate rank even when it clearly can be avoided. ---
**Author:** ![SiXSwordS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-they-dumb-down-chess-programs/496096/25 "2009-05-13T12:23:29Z")
> [@ajb867](#): > > …what would make the computer activate the self destruct button like that? 😃 After reading the article **Erasmus Darwin** linked to (it’s worth a read!), my guess would be that, given two moves, the computer always chooses the one that leaves you a possible attack. During the rest of the game, there were no situations that stood out in such stark relief but, given the disparity between white’s two moves, it looks like sudden suicide, but Marvin has been resigned to losing the whole time. > [@glee](#): > > Let me know if you agree and I’ll set the thread up. Have you ever had that feeling, like: what did I sign up for? :smack: OK, can we agree on a way to randomize for W/B? I looked through your games last night and there are several points where I’m still not sure I understand. In the second game (I’m hoping there is a typo in move 8. dxc5 **b** xc5 rather than **d** ) I can see that you have a commanding position, but I still can’t see how you can call it a win from there. I’m not doubting that it is and as White I would likely resign, but the computer never resigns. I also played a game against the computer last night and finished it this AM. I had a dominating position when I went to bed, with Black retreating so that he only had one piece out of the back row and only one pawn as far as the fifth. I did win, but it took me forever to figure out what to do and my first attempt was seriously flawed and not only let him off the hook, but allowed him to centralize his Q and left my Q as the only guard for for my bishops. > [@Chronos](#): > > The computer did not, in fact, show mercy, being a machine incapable of mercy By that logic, the computer in **ajb867** ’s example _lost_ mercilessly. 🙂 > [@](#): > > If you used every single subatomic particle in the entire Universe to represent a bit in your table, that’d be just about enough data storage to store a tablebase about 50 moves deep. That adds some perspective! ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-they-dumb-down-chess-programs/496096/26 "2009-05-13T12:58:08Z")
> [@SiXSwordS](#): > > Have you ever had that feeling, like: what did I sign up for? > :smack: > > OK, can we agree on a way to randomize for W/B? No worries - I’m a trained chess teacher. 🆒 Why don’t you toss a coin for colours - I trust you. 🙂 > [@SiXSwordS](#): > > I looked through your games last night and there are several points where I’m still not sure I understand. In the second game (I’m hoping there is a typo in move 8. dxc5 **b** xc5 rather than **d** ) I can see that you have a commanding position, but I still can’t see how you can call it a win from there. I’m not doubting that it is and as White I would likely resign, but the computer never resigns. Well done on spotting the typo! :o It was indeed 8. … bxc5. As you say, the computer doesn’t resign, but I thought the win was trivial in both cases. (I did give the next few game moves in brackets starting e.g. and in each case I come out way ahead on material.) ---
**Author:** ![SiXSwordS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-they-dumb-down-chess-programs/496096/27 "2009-05-13T13:55:37Z")
> [@glee](#): > > No worries - I’m a trained chess teacher. 🆒 Thanks for the opportunity. > [@](#): > > Why don’t you toss a coin for colours - I trust you. 🙂 OK, I flipped a coin. Call it. > [@](#): > > (I did give the next few game moves in brackets starting e.g. and in each case I come out way ahead on material.) One of the problems I’ve been running into is that I can get an advantage in material or position or tempo, but I have a hard time “converting” that into a win. In the game I played last night/ this morning, I won, but only clumsily, despite having the advantage in position and development. One of the reasons I started this thread was that I was wondering if programs are dumbed down by simply playing weak openings. At this point, I’ve ruled that out. But I am reminded of three painful losses. In one, I resigned as W. We switched sides and played the position out to where I resigned as B too. In another, my opponent blundered in the opening and I took his Q. Five moves later I resigned when he took my Q anyway. He chastised me for giving up the advantage, but I thought I was playing to my advantage. Using a different chess program, I set up the end position from a “white to move and win” puzzle. I played W and could not beat the computer. …:smack: ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-they-dumb-down-chess-programs/496096/28 "2009-05-13T16:14:26Z")
OK, I’ve started the game thread [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11136274#post11136274). I call ‘Tails’ for colours. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-they-dumb-down-chess-programs/496096.md?page=1)