How many Ranks exist in this game and what is each one called? 
True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides
Sort:
ponz111 wrote:
It is important what grand masters think. Also there is a ton of other evidence that is important.
Some low rated players deride grand masters out of ignorance. Grand masters who have spent decades playing chess--know the game very well. They just cannot compete with a computer which can examine millions of positions in one second.
Any very strong player knows that chess is not a win from the opening position. Some low skill players might think a win from the starting position might be possible but it is just because they do not understand chess well enough.
What a chess grandmaster thinks about chess being solved is as important as what a long distance runner thinks about how fast machines will ever go. It makes zero difference what they think.
When you say "any strong player" I assume you are referring to complete beginners, when compared to computers. When this "strong player" says with certainty what the future of chess solving is it's the same as the long distance runner saying, with certainty, how fast machines of the future will be. The truth is neither have the slightest clue, regardless of their current ability in their respective fields.
lfPatriotGames έγραψε:
ponz111 wrote:
It is important what grand masters think. Also there is a ton of other evidence that is important.
Some low rated players deride grand masters out of ignorance. Grand masters who have spent decades playing chess--know the game very well. They just cannot compete with a computer which can examine millions of positions in one second.
Any very strong player knows that chess is not a win from the opening position. Some low skill players might think a win from the starting position might be possible but it is just because they do not understand chess well enough.
What a chess grandmaster thinks about chess being solved is as important as what a long distance runner thinks about how fast machines will ever go. It makes zero difference what they think.
When you say "any strong player" I assume you are referring to complete beginners, when compared to computers. When this "strong player" says with certainty what the future of chess solving is it's the same as the long distance runner saying, with certainty, how fast machines of the future will be. The truth is neither have the slightest clue, regardless of their current ability in their respective fields.
Sadly enough, you have missed the whole point of Ponzi's post. Or, you are delusional about the computers' chances to solve chess. In all likelihood, both of the above.
"accurate" means [in chess] "without mistakes" There are millions of positions where you are to move and there may be a dozen "accurate" moves which lead to a forced win or draw.
Mar 2, 2020
0
#2586
@KibiDangoman The word you are looking for is blunder.
Don't rely too heavily on engine analysis. There are still positions that Stockfish gets wrong, or does not get right fast enough.
For instance, I played Black against Stockfish from this position last week. It took some time before the initial evaluation of +2.00 gave way to +0.50, and several moves before it recognized the position as 0.00.
I know the true answer to this puzzle, but, I'm not going to tell.
pfren wrote:
lfPatriotGames έγραψε:
ponz111 wrote:
It is important what grand masters think. Also there is a ton of other evidence that is important.
Some low rated players deride grand masters out of ignorance. Grand masters who have spent decades playing chess--know the game very well. They just cannot compete with a computer which can examine millions of positions in one second.
Any very strong player knows that chess is not a win from the opening position. Some low skill players might think a win from the starting position might be possible but it is just because they do not understand chess well enough.
What a chess grandmaster thinks about chess being solved is as important as what a long distance runner thinks about how fast machines will ever go. It makes zero difference what they think.
When you say "any strong player" I assume you are referring to complete beginners, when compared to computers. When this "strong player" says with certainty what the future of chess solving is it's the same as the long distance runner saying, with certainty, how fast machines of the future will be. The truth is neither have the slightest clue, regardless of their current ability in their respective fields.
Sadly enough, you have missed the whole point of Ponzi's post. Or, you are delusional about the computers' chances to solve chess. In all likelihood, both of the above.
The point of his post is that he, along with certain grandmasters, believe the outcome of whether or not chess is a draw with "best play" is already known. It is not already known. He does not know, I do not know, you do not know, and all grandmasters do not know. They guess. I can guess. You can guess. and he can guess. But we dont know. We do not have enough information to know. Anymore than a long distance runner can "know" how fast machines in the future will be. It's guesses and speculation. Nobody knows.
Haven’t there been certain endgames that were believed (by the authorities) to be drawn, but were discovered to be wins after sufficient computer investigation?
Ziryab wrote:
@KibiDangoman The word you are looking for is blunder.
Don't rely too heavily on engine analysis. There are still positions that Stockfish gets wrong, or does not get right fast enough.
For instance, I played Black against Stockfish from this position last week. It took some time before the initial evaluation of +2.00 gave way to +0.50, and several moves before it recognized the position as 0.00.
@Ziryab,
You just need 6 men syzgy tablebase to solve your issue.
http://oics.olympuschess.com/tracker/index.php
The torrent is free and legal to download as the owner publicy share those database.
You dont need to spend a few minutes to check the position. Stockfish can tell you the outcome 100% correctly within 1 second.
P.S. I wouldnt trust Stockfish evaluation without Tablebase. These days, a properly installed Stockfish can hit tablebases as early as move 12 or move 15 of opening phase ( Theoretically engines in these days can see door to door, from opening to ending in her Principal Variations or her predicted lines).
"These days, a properly installed Stockfish can hit tablebases as early as move 12 or move 15 of opening phase"
If there are seven or fewer pieces on the board.
Show me pgn of opening, I will analyse with my droidfish for 1 min and will show you how many times Stockfish hit tablebase ( seeing ending) while there are 28 to 30 chessmen on the board in the opening.
My phone has only 5 men tablebase( 900 MB) , my desktop has 6 mentablebase (1.5 GB) , serious engine users have up to 7 men tablebase(17 TB).
Mar 2, 2020
0
#2593
With so many possible games “perfect play” is impossible to determine, at least it is using today’s best engines. That said to eliminate the possibility that the outcome of perfect play from both sides is in fact a win for black is incorrect. Who knows maybe as a hypothetical engine’s rating approaches infinity it becomes able to win every time as black and can at best draw with white when playing itself. Maybe moving first is actually a disadvantage at such a high rating because it creates vulnerabilities only a god-like engine can properly exploit yet to us mere mortals it is clear that moving first increases winning chances.
Mar 2, 2020
0
#2594
kindaspongey escribió:
Haven’t there been certain endgames that were believed (by the authorities) to be drawn, but were discovered to be wins after sufficient computer investigation?
Yes, KBB vs KN is one of them.
Mar 2, 2020
0
#2595
Laskersnephew escribió:
"These days, a properly installed Stockfish can hit tablebases as early as move 12 or move 15 of opening phase"
If there are seven or fewer pieces on the board.
Nope, they hit TBs even with all 32 pieces although you need to leave them thinking for hours at a time, still very impressive.
"Nope, they hit TBs even with all 32 pieces although you need to leave them thinking for hours at a time, still very impressive."
Why do they do that when there are no 32-piece--or even 8-piece tablebases?
Mar 2, 2020
0
#2597
Ziryab escribió:
@KibiDangoman The word you are looking for is blunder.
Don't rely too heavily on engine analysis. There are still positions that Stockfish gets wrong, or does not get right fast enough.
For instance, I played Black against Stockfish from this position last week. It took some time before the initial evaluation of +2.00 gave way to +0.50, and several moves before it recognized the position as 0.00.
What computer are you using? Even the slow chess.com Stockfish 10 shows ~1.10 immediately and drops to 0.8 in about 3 seconds, less than a minute later and it evaluates 0.36. This is all without TBs.
Mar 2, 2020
0
#2598
Laskersnephew escribió:
"Nope, they hit TBs even with all 32 pieces although you need to leave them thinking for hours at a time, still very impressive."
Why do they do that when there are no 32-piece--or even 8-piece tablebases?
Hitting a tablebase just means the engine has accessed the TB, the search tree the engine generates can go deep enough to reach positions with 7 pieces and that's when it'll ask the TB for an evaluation, i.e., it hits the TB.
Mar 2, 2020
0
#2599
Also, 8-piece tablebases or more can be generated with FinalGen for a single position albeit with some limitations.
Mar 2, 2020
0
#2600
drmrboss wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
@KibiDangoman The word you are looking for is blunder.
Don't rely too heavily on engine analysis. There are still positions that Stockfish gets wrong, or does not get right fast enough.
For instance, I played Black against Stockfish from this position last week. It took some time before the initial evaluation of +2.00 gave way to +0.50, and several moves before it recognized the position as 0.00.
@Ziryab,
You just need 6 men syzgy tablebase to solve your issue.
http://oics.olympuschess.com/tracker/index.php
The torrent is free and legal to download as the owner publicy share those database.
You dont need to spend a few minutes to check the position. Stockfish can tell you the outcome 100% correctly within 1 second.
P.S. I wouldnt trust Stockfish evaluation without Tablebase. These days, a properly installed Stockfish can hit tablebases as early as move 12 or move 15 of opening phase ( Theoretically engines in these days can see door to door, from opening to ending in her Principal Variations or her predicted lines).
You missed the point. I could use an example with more pieces. Positions still exist that Stockfish, even with tablebases, will evaluate incorrectly. Of course I use engines. For some people—maybe you’re one of them—engines are a crutch, and people put too much faith in their evaluations.
Stockfish played this position perfectly without tablebases, but it did not evaluate the position correctly. Of course with six-piece tablebases, it would need no calculation, and would know in a nanosecond that it is drawn.
It is important what grand masters think. Also there is a ton of other evidence that is important.
Some low rated players deride grand masters out of ignorance. Grand masters who have spent decades playing chess--know the game very well. They just cannot compete with a computer which can examine millions of positions in one second.
Any very strong player knows that chess is not a win from the opening position. Some low skill players might think a win from the starting position might be possible but it is just because they do not understand chess well enough.