It would be nice to have a chess trainer AI that considers the human factor when evaluating a position.<p>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.<p>Still, the pro player has absolutely no chance against the engine without an handicap.<p>Assuming that stockfish runs on a computer that is <i>much</i> 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.
> 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.<p>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.<p>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.
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.
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.
I have tried the Stafford gambit against real people and i have found that unless people fall for the trap it is a very weak play for black. I keep having to make dumb moves hoping for the other player to fall into the trap.
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.