- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Finding Traps with Stockfish

#2

This is an interesting idea, but if one imagines a computer engine that tries to play trappy lines, they basically play based on the assumption that their opponent can't think over a certain depth. Is that the contempt setting in computer engines?

Funny enough, I am already caching the engine evaluation values for various levels. Maybe I can implement a trap detector and see how it works in real life!

Thanks for this.

This is an interesting idea, but if one imagines a computer engine that tries to play trappy lines, they basically play based on the assumption that their opponent can't think over a certain depth. Is that the contempt setting in computer engines? Funny enough, I am already caching the engine evaluation values for various levels. Maybe I can implement a trap detector and see how it works in real life! Thanks for this.
#3

I did not read carefully yet, but saw that you had access to human range depth. how did you have access to the shallow iterative depth data? not with lichess.. I assume command line. or using Lichess tools extra control? maybe in the text already..

Otherwise great question. I have been wondering about that for 5 years. now.. It might also help in developping defintions of traps that are testable.

I will read mostly for that. Having automatic objectives like that, is a good way to tether down the thinking testing exsting words to reality well posed properties, which in turn might help communication and teaching using those words as not dependent on the experience requirement only, and its example restricted means of external world adjustement for the word meaning.

what is a trap exactly.. can we have an example independent characterization. and then how is that made mathematical in the usage of the engine.. etc.. that is my background set of motivations. now I should find some time to read this.. for that.

I did not read carefully yet, but saw that you had access to human range depth. how did you have access to the shallow iterative depth data? not with lichess.. I assume command line. or using Lichess tools extra control? maybe in the text already.. Otherwise great question. I have been wondering about that for 5 years. now.. It might also help in developping defintions of traps that are testable. I will read mostly for that. Having automatic objectives like that, is a good way to tether down the thinking testing exsting words to reality well posed properties, which in turn might help communication and teaching using those words as not dependent on the experience requirement only, and its example restricted means of external world adjustement for the word meaning. what is a trap exactly.. can we have an example independent characterization. and then how is that made mathematical in the usage of the engine.. etc.. that is my background set of motivations. now I should find some time to read this.. for that.
#5

@Toadofsky said in #4:

Or, you know, do the lazy thing and ask Google if someone has already done this...
github.com/davidADSP/chess-trap-scorer

Good point. but that does not exclude another thinking attempt, as what is a trap exactly.
So what was a trap in that existing attempt, also. good blog.. and then good there is a forum thread attached.. we can discuss with more than one person take on it..

Anyone else having existing attempts.. I don't think the juice here is only about the tool or scorer.. There might be some research and discussion needed. But that is certainly a "data point", we would need to extract the math. defintion implemented there so we can all continue the discussin on common ground here.. (or elsewhere)..
^
There are also human curated repertoire of opening traps.. Are all traps only definable in the opening knowledge context, can there be endgame "traps"... I find that all deep chess vision differentials in each game pairing might be about traps.. I see deeper that you, I can set traps. or even traps might be surprises to both players...

Or is trap a well defined chessboard word. Is this as objective as the "center of the board". It is about depth, plans, and goals within chess vision.. That is exciting stuff.. I wish i had more energy.. and reading stamina.

By math. I don't mean obscure formulas.. necessarily but a logical model and set of worded defintions using common information from the chessboard objective information. The subjective aspect of trap would likely drive a many head discussion (not necessarily here, i mean dialog of definition candidates, could be blog to blog. but accepting that words from chess language born of single player experience might need some work toward making those objective worded concepts to optimize the efficacy of using such things in verbal communication, and real chess learning problem context, i.e teaching too, using language that can be critical thinking learned to make experince learning a both brains project, the analytical approach but not self satisfied from mere ELO based credibility induced theories of learning or communication , as that is still subjective floating corpus, making sense to already learned players...).

@Toadofsky said in #4: > Or, you know, do the lazy thing and ask Google if someone has already done this... > github.com/davidADSP/chess-trap-scorer Good point. but that does not exclude another thinking attempt, as what is a trap exactly. So what was a trap in that existing attempt, also. good blog.. and then good there is a forum thread attached.. we can discuss with more than one person take on it.. Anyone else having existing attempts.. I don't think the juice here is only about the tool or scorer.. There might be some research and discussion needed. But that is certainly a "data point", we would need to extract the math. defintion implemented there so we can all continue the discussin on common ground here.. (or elsewhere).. ^ There are also human curated repertoire of opening traps.. Are all traps only definable in the opening knowledge context, can there be endgame "traps"... I find that all deep chess vision differentials in each game pairing might be about traps.. I see deeper that you, I can set traps. or even traps might be surprises to both players... Or is trap a well defined chessboard word. Is this as objective as the "center of the board". It is about depth, plans, and goals within chess vision.. That is exciting stuff.. I wish i had more energy.. and reading stamina. By math. I don't mean obscure formulas.. necessarily but a logical model and set of worded defintions using common information from the chessboard objective information. The subjective aspect of trap would likely drive a many head discussion (not necessarily here, i mean dialog of definition candidates, could be blog to blog. but accepting that words from chess language born of single player experience might need some work toward making those objective worded concepts to optimize the efficacy of using such things in verbal communication, and real chess learning problem context, i.e teaching too, using language that can be critical thinking learned to make experince learning a both brains project, the analytical approach but not self satisfied from mere ELO based credibility induced theories of learning or communication , as that is still subjective floating corpus, making sense to already learned players...).
#6

Have you tried using the Lichess Puzzles Database to detect traps using maia chess engine?
If it cannot solve the puzzle would it not be a trap?
https://database.lichess.org/#puzzles
https://lichess.org/@/maia1
https://lichess.org/@/maia5
https://lichess.org/@/maia9

Have you tried using the Lichess Puzzles Database to detect traps using maia chess engine? If it cannot solve the puzzle would it not be a trap? https://database.lichess.org/#puzzles https://lichess.org/@/maia1 https://lichess.org/@/maia5 https://lichess.org/@/maia9
#7

Decreasing Mobility: Quantifying the number of legal moves available to the opponent's key pieces over a sequence. A significant and consistent reduction in mobility, especially for the king or major pieces, could indicate a trap closing.

Control of Key Squares: Analyzing the number of squares controlled by each player, particularly central and strategically important squares. A gradual increase in control for one player while the opponent's control diminishes might signal a conceptual squeeze.

Restricted Piece Coordination: Assessing the ability of the opponent's pieces to work together harmoniously. A sequence of moves that isolates pieces or limits their communication could be part of a trap.

Unnecessary Complications: Identifying sequences of moves that don't seem to lead to immediate tactical advantages but introduce a web of variations. This might be a deliberate attempt to overwhelm the opponent and hide the trap within the complexity.

Deviations from Standard Principles: Recognizing moves that violate fundamental chess principles (e.g., developing pieces, controlling the center, king safety) without a clear immediate compensation. These deviations could be the "bait" leading into a trap.

Forced Responses: Analyzing if the opponent's moves are becoming increasingly forced, with fewer genuine choices available. This suggests their strategic freedom is being curtailed.

Considering Alternative Opponent Moves: Asking "What if my opponent played something else?" and evaluating the consequences. If a seemingly natural response leads to trouble across multiple variations, it could be a trap.

Decreasing Mobility: Quantifying the number of legal moves available to the opponent's key pieces over a sequence. A significant and consistent reduction in mobility, especially for the king or major pieces, could indicate a trap closing. Control of Key Squares: Analyzing the number of squares controlled by each player, particularly central and strategically important squares. A gradual increase in control for one player while the opponent's control diminishes might signal a conceptual squeeze. Restricted Piece Coordination: Assessing the ability of the opponent's pieces to work together harmoniously. A sequence of moves that isolates pieces or limits their communication could be part of a trap. Unnecessary Complications: Identifying sequences of moves that don't seem to lead to immediate tactical advantages but introduce a web of variations. This might be a deliberate attempt to overwhelm the opponent and hide the trap within the complexity. Deviations from Standard Principles: Recognizing moves that violate fundamental chess principles (e.g., developing pieces, controlling the center, king safety) without a clear immediate compensation. These deviations could be the "bait" leading into a trap. Forced Responses: Analyzing if the opponent's moves are becoming increasingly forced, with fewer genuine choices available. This suggests their strategic freedom is being curtailed. Considering Alternative Opponent Moves: Asking "What if my opponent played something else?" and evaluating the consequences. If a seemingly natural response leads to trouble across multiple variations, it could be a trap.
#8

idea. (and lots to read here and the blog).

rule of thumb induced trap. someone told me that a trap must have some temptation within the player chess vision breadth (foresight ability given the duration and intensity of pre-decision ruminations), that lures their internal representation and desirable future possible imagined outcomes quality in error , it does not have to be about calculation depths, it could be about mis-generalization of certain action principles not having been experiences enough to find all the excetptions yet.

the problem of generlization might be an element here.. beholder stuff.

although calculatoin depth could clear that. so maybe the duration and intensity (effort) are dependent variables to such possibiliiyt.. yet. I bet the faster the time control the more people might rely on reflexes or conscious principles not fully experienced in all the nuances that are necessarily hidden with an example based theory of word to board learning.

idea. (and lots to read here and the blog). rule of thumb induced trap. someone told me that a trap must have some temptation within the player chess vision breadth (foresight ability given the duration and intensity of pre-decision ruminations), that lures their internal representation and desirable future possible imagined outcomes quality in error , it does not have to be about calculation depths, it could be about mis-generalization of certain action principles not having been experiences enough to find all the excetptions yet. the problem of generlization might be an element here.. beholder stuff. although calculatoin depth could clear that. so maybe the duration and intensity (effort) are dependent variables to such possibiliiyt.. yet. I bet the faster the time control the more people might rely on reflexes or conscious principles not fully experienced in all the nuances that are necessarily hidden with an example based theory of word to board learning.
#9

It's a very intresting concept i learnt today....I will give a try to figure out...

It's a very intresting concept i learnt today....I will give a try to figure out...
#10

@Toadofsky said in #4:

Or, you know, do the lazy thing and ask Google if someone has already done this...
github.com/davidADSP/chess-trap-scorer

That's something else. Also, that functionality is already implemented in LiChess Tools as the /trapvalue command. (https://siderite.dev/blog/lichess-tools---user-manual/#commands)

@Toadofsky said in #4: > Or, you know, do the lazy thing and ask Google if someone has already done this... > github.com/davidADSP/chess-trap-scorer That's something else. Also, that functionality is already implemented in LiChess Tools as the /trapvalue command. (https://siderite.dev/blog/lichess-tools---user-manual/#commands)