[HN Gopher] How to Calculate the Trappiest Openings in Chess Usi...
___________________________________________________________________
How to Calculate the Trappiest Openings in Chess Using Stats
Author : datashrimp
Score : 77 points
Date : 2021-10-16 11:01 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (medium.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (medium.com)
| seanhunter wrote:
| I absolutely would have guessed Stafford as the top with Englund
| near so the resulting ranking seems to correspond strongly with
| my intuition at least. I'm surprised Blackmar-Diemer is so high
| but maybe that becomes more viscious when you're higher rated
| than I am.
| datashrimp wrote:
| That's good to hear! Blackmar-Diemer is favoured by this
| ranking system as although it's a longish line, the opponent's
| move are all fairly probable, with the least probable being
| Qxd4 at still around 20%.
| eddd wrote:
| Eric Rosen porn.
| perpetualpatzer wrote:
| I imagine the answer here varies a lot by elo of the training
| corpus because skill effects the probability input. In the 500s,
| 3. Qh5 to scholar's mate is both potent and very probable. In the
| 1300s it's just a mistake. It would be really interesting to see
| the overlap between high and low elo traps.
| datashrimp wrote:
| Absolutely - in the repo, you can adjust for the skill of the
| opponent https://github.com/davidADSP/chess-trap-scorer.
|
| The analysis so far has been for 1600-1800 players.
| Gehinnn wrote:
| It would be nice to have a chess trainer AI that considers the
| human factor when evaluating a position.
|
| It's funny that it is relatively easy to beat stockfish when the
| computer has to play without the queen. But it is quite hard to
| beat a pro player even with such a strong handicap.
|
| Still, the pro player has absolutely no chance against the engine
| without an handicap.
|
| Assuming that stockfish runs on a computer that is _much_ faster
| than what we have today and sees that white can always forcibly
| win, I wonder if stockfish would immediately resign as black
| playing against a human, even before the very first move.
| captn3m0 wrote:
| maiachess.com is "A human-like neural network chess engine"
| which is trained at 9 skill levels (1100-1900).
|
| >We tested each Maia on 9 sets of 500,000 positions that arose
| in real human games, one for each rating level between 1100 and
| 1900. Every Maia made a prediction for every position, and we
| measured its resulting move-matching accuracy on each set.
|
| >Each Maia captures human style at its targeted skill level.
| Lower Maias best predict moves played by lower-rated players,
| whereas higher Maias predict moves made by higher-rated
| players.
|
| Previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25810034
| momothereal wrote:
| In sufficiently advanced CPU vs. CPU, the Black side would
| definitely resign on the first move.
|
| However, assuming White has a 10% higher chance of winning in
| games between 2 Human players, that still leaves a decent
| margin of error for the White Human side to blunder during the
| game, so Black CPU wouldn't resign. This is assuming CPU
| doesn't know about that individual Human's blunder history.
|
| Basically, CPUvCPU would definitely see an instant resign. In
| HUMvCPU, only the Human should definitely surrender as black. A
| Black CPU will keep playing in case the Human blunders.
| nuclearnice1 wrote:
| > Black side would definitely resign on the first move.
|
| Glancing at Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-
| move_advantage_in_ches...
|
| This claim seems ahead of consensus? What evidence tells you
| that black is lost at move 1 rather than drawn?
| [deleted]
| nullc wrote:
| It was a thought experiment set by the ancestor post for
| the purpose of discussion. "Assuming that [...] sees that
| white can always forcibly win"
| nuclearnice1 wrote:
| Ah right I see
| sam2426679 wrote:
| > But it is quite hard to beat a pro player even with such a
| strong handicap.
|
| Don't take this the wrong way, but how good are you, i.e. what
| is your rating?
|
| imo, any reasonably seasoned player, after handicapping their
| opponent to be without a queen, should be able to easily win in
| a relatively straightforward by avoiding blunders and trading
| off pieces.
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| You underestimate the amount of traps a strong player could
| have by making the position complex. Hikaru could beat >2000
| rated player in queen odds[1].
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo8GOAm1E6c
| pharrington wrote:
| I wonder how different the results would be if the high
| skilled players didn't know they were playing against
| Hikaru.
| eeegnu wrote:
| Probably would be the same as playing against alpha zero
| without knowing and wondering how every good move you
| play seems to leave you worse off.
| dmurray wrote:
| > In order to compare lines of different lengths, we take the
| geometric mean of the probabilities, to give the average
| probability of the opponent playing the next required move in
| sequence.
|
| This doesn't seem right to me. A line where your opponent has to
| find ten 75% moves in a row to fall into it is less "probable",
| by any reasonable understanding of the word, than one where he
| has a 50% chance of going wrong immediately.
|
| I'd multiply the probabilities move by move to get the cumulative
| probability, but I'd only start at the point where the trap-
| setter plays a suboptimal move, to account for these different
| lengths of lines.
| datashrimp wrote:
| The longer lines are technically less probable, like you say -
| I was trying to capture the notion that a trap is more
| impressive if on average, moves are likely. How would you
| define 'sub-optimal' move in your proposal? It's a good idea
| -would be interesting to see it in action!
| dmurray wrote:
| I can't think of a good way to do this purely based on move
| stats: I think you'd want to involve the engine. There's a
| Stockfish package for Python you could use, and it wouldn't
| be expensive or difficult to query the few evaluations you'd
| need. I would say a suboptimal move is when the evaluation
| changes by more than X, maybe 50 or 80 centipawns.
|
| I tried out the project and sent you a couple of minor pull
| requests. I wanted to score my pet trap:
|
| 1. e4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 3. d3 dxe4 4. Ng5 exd3 5. Bxd3
|
| after which the most popular moves Nf6 (trap score 34%) and
| h6 (trap score 29%) both lose immediately to Nxf7 (if Kxf7,
| Bg6+ and Qxd8 wins the queen). I've seen plenty of titled
| players fall for this. I think the correct way to score this
| trap is the sum of those trap scores, because the "trap" is
| set after Bd3, but there are multiple ways to fall into it.
| That would give it by far the highest score at 63%, but maybe
| changing the methodology this way would also increase the
| score of your other traps.
| lixtra wrote:
| I miss: A good trap is safe - if the defender responds optimal,
| the trap setter is not in a worse position than before.
| tromp wrote:
| The Stafford Gambit doesn't fare well there. It requires Black
| to play 3. ... Nc6 in the Russian defense after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3
| Nf6 3. Nxe5 which according to Stockfish loses more than a
| pawn's worth (eval +2 for white after Nxc6 d3 Bc5 h3).
|
| The Noah's Ark Trap is much safer, as black only loses a
| fraction of a pawn going into the line
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruy_Lopez,_Noah%27s_Ark_Trap ).
| dmurray wrote:
| In chess theory a "trap" normally means the opposite, a move
| that is not optimal but gives the opponent a chance to go
| wrong.
| yewenjie wrote:
| I would love to see an interactive version of the same that would
| let me filter with rating ranges and time control.
| datashrimp wrote:
| I'll see what we can do!
| _0ffh wrote:
| It might also be interesting to calculate the win probabilities
| for the players when the trap is avoided, so you can judge what
| you pay for setting the trap.
| datashrimp wrote:
| Great idea!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-17 23:02 UTC)