TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Finding surprising moves in chess games

135 点作者 mdp超过 8 年前

8 条评论

Matetricks超过 8 年前
If I understand your code correctly in analyse_evaluations, you&#x27;re defining a &quot;surprising move&quot; as a move that has a large change in valuation when it&#x27;s considered at a higher depth. So if a &quot;human&quot; (really Stockfish at depth 5) evaluates a move as +1 and a &quot;computer&quot; (Stockfish now at depth 11) evaluates the move as +5, the move is surprising.<p>This is pretty interesting, but I&#x27;m not sure if it fully captures all the nuances of what a surprising move is. You might be able to classify a move as tactically surprising if it becomes clear after depth 7 that the ending position is favorable. However, in my opinion truly surprising moves are ones that carry plans that I haven&#x27;t even considered. Hence, this methodology doesn&#x27;t capture moves that are positionally surprising as there wouldn&#x27;t be such a drastic change in evaluation at different depths. I&#x27;m not sure where you would start to figure that one out though :)<p>That being said this is really cool work!
评论 #13174096 未加载
评论 #13174647 未加载
评论 #13173133 未加载
al_biglan超过 8 年前
This seems a perfect candidate to test with some well known test games.<p>Fischer&#x27;s 17 ... Be6, for example in the Game of the Century<p>Or 15 ...Nf2 (again Fischer and Byrne) <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.chessgames.com&#x2F;perl&#x2F;chessgame?gid=1008419&amp;kpage=1" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.chessgames.com&#x2F;perl&#x2F;chessgame?gid=1008419&amp;kpage=1</a><p>It might be interesting to see how many blunders this identifies compared with traditional analysis. (Looking at the &quot;surprising bad move&quot; vs &quot;surprising good move&quot;)<p>In any case, very interesting work. Others have some good ideas for additional checks&#x2F;considerations, and it would be interesting to see how this evolves!
评论 #13173739 未加载
schoen超过 8 年前
Note that Stockfish, which this project uses, just won the TCEC computer chess championship.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;TCEC" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;TCEC</a><p>There are other championships out there, but this is an indication that Stockfish is among the very strongest chess-playing entities in the world.
CYHSM超过 8 年前
Hi! I&#x27;m the author of this little library. Somebody apparently took it from my reddit thread (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;chess&#x2F;comments&#x2F;5i54lu&#x2F;how_to_quantify_surprising_chess_moves&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;chess&#x2F;comments&#x2F;5i54lu&#x2F;how_to_quanti...</a>) and linked it here. Thank you for doing that, i haven&#x27;t thought this would interest so many people!<p>I hope i can answer some of your questions given more time but I have to say there are some very cool suggestions here and in the reddit thread which i have to keep in mind.
billforsternz超过 8 年前
I&#x27;ve been thinking about adding a game-analyse feature to my Tarrasch Chess GUI <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;triplehappy.com" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;triplehappy.com</a>. I was toying with the idea of using stockfish plus a poor engine as opposed to stockfish deep plus stockfish shallow. I was actually going to use my own Tarrasch Toy engine (about 1500 elo) as a reasonable proxy of a poor human player. My engine has fixed depth, so when set to very low depth will routinely just do the obvious thing and fall into simple fork traps etc., which would make it possible to auto generate simple explanatory variations like &quot;Not $bad_move_played_by_my_engine because of $refutation_variation_pointed_out_by_stockfish.&quot;<p>Like you I&#x27;ve noticed that often when looking at Engine Analysis the obvious human move doesn&#x27;t appear as one of the first choices, which usually means there is an opportunity to get the machine to show you some tactics.<p>So essentially your idea modulated by my assumption it would be difficult to get Stockfish to play sufficiently badly for stockfish deep plus stockfish shallow.<p>But anyway, congrats to you for actually getting there first and making the idea work.
dsjoerg超过 8 年前
Really cool idea and interesting visualization! I am working on similar &#x2F; related stuff if you&#x27;d like to collaborate further. dsjoerg at gmail.com. I participated in <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.kaggle.com&#x2F;c&#x2F;finding-elo" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.kaggle.com&#x2F;c&#x2F;finding-elo</a>
pk2200超过 8 年前
You might also add the condition that best-move(deep-search) != best-move(shallow-search). IMO this is what really makes a move surprising - it looks bad, but is good.<p>Btw, I&#x27;ve never seen Rxd4!! from Kasparov-Topalov described as a &quot;natural&quot; move. I&#x27;m guessing the author meant &quot;unnatural&quot;. :)
评论 #13173272 未加载
评论 #13174003 未加载
vinchuco超过 8 年前
I wish it had examples! I&#x27;d be more interested in a move that complicates the game. In fact, what is the most complicated position in chess? (Legal or not)
评论 #13174776 未加载
评论 #13177438 未加载
评论 #13175917 未加载
评论 #13173244 未加载
评论 #13173810 未加载