What gets me about this thread is the following:
Thread title is "
And so you could opine then swiftly it is hammered: "If you ever get to be a strong player you would know chess is a draw with perfect play".
Logic and pleasantness is thrown out the window.
What do you think is the best, cherry or vanilla ice cream? I think cherry is the best. Then comes: If you know anything about taste, vanilla is best...........................
Had the thread been titled "I insist with best play chess is always a draw" then all the later insisting would line up.
JimDiesel Human bias plays little or no role in correspondence chess. And certainly humans who play correspondence chess have no bias towards a draw--they want to win. Example. when I played in the final round of the United States Correspondence Chess Championship--=I was playing for a win every game and out of 14 games played--I won 13.
You seem to have little understanding of chess and correspondence chess if you think humans have a bias towards draws in either game. Humans want to win. The fact that there are more and more draws in correspondence chess is because the game of chess IS A DRAW and humans who wish to win cannot overcome the natural course of a very well played game.l
Regarding B I am not asking you to trust me. I am just stating the fact that as humans get stronger and stronger in chess--they understand chess is a draw. Also, you seem to have a basic misunderstanding about chess and that may be the reason you have apparently not even tried to look at the recent evidence?
Also you made the statement: The top grandmasters draw more often than stockfish vs alpha zero despite being way worse." This statement of yours is not true, Just the opposite is true. Again this shows you have a basic misunderstanding of chess.
Chess is not the only thing about which he lacks understanding. Logic belongs in the list.
Here's a question that could be pondered: If some make believe chess programs, say one called Stockcrab and the other, Leeland, got so good and 100% of their games are draws, would the programs be making perfect moves?
There's one logical response.
Your question doesn't really make sense. It seems that your begging the question or are phrasing it really weirdly. Are you asking "What if the best chess engines got so good that they always draw?" or "What if the best engines kept improving until they always drew?"?
To the second question, I'd say likely, but not necessarily.
Here's a question that could be pondered: If some make believe chess programs, say one called Stockcrab and the other, Leeland, got so good and 100% of their games are draws, would the programs be making perfect moves?
There's one logical response.
Your question doesn't really make sense. It seems that your begging the question or are phrasing it really weirdly. Are you asking "What if the best chess engines got so good that they always draw?" or "What if the best engines kept improving until they always drew?"?
To the second question, I'd say likely, but not necessarily.
No begging a question and nothing really weird about it. This goes to demonstrate that if two chess programs always ended up in draws, there is no conclusive evidence that the moves made were PERFECT. The moves could be LESS THAN PERFECT. This should be obvious.
If you have a tree in your backyard and it is tall brown and green....
no, no, don't make such a horrible question. it's all wrong how u say it. begging an answer, begging a question. it's weird...i can't respond to it the way u asked it so i will make certain i am not shown to be wrong in making up my own question and answering it.....
no, no, don't make such a horrible question.
It is horrible. You described the program as "so good"? "So good" that what? It makes me think you meant to say "So good that 100% of their games are draws" which is a textbook example of begging the question.
A lot depends on the definition of a "perfect move". In this forum we have defined a perfect move as any move which does not change the position to a forced loss. So in any position there can be several perfect moves.
JimDiesel Human bias plays little or no role in correspondence chess.
Well there you have it. Humans have bias in everything. Business, relationships, money, competition, everything. Except correspondence chess.
Also, fair I was wrong, I thought GMs drew more than computers. But still, GM results, correspondence chess results, ponz111's results, don't matter. It's like consulting a race car driver on car advice instead of a mechanic.
JimDiesel humans who play correspondence chess tend to be intelligent and when they play chess tend to play the best possible way they can play. You were talking about bias towards drawing and that shows you know little about correspondence chess--players want to win and thus they have no bias to either lose or draw. [this should be common sense to you]
Yes, you were wrong when you though GMs drew more than the computers you mentioned.
But you are wrong again when you state GM results. correspondence chess results, ponz111's results don't matter. Actually GM results and correspondence chess results DO MATTER as they are part of the ton of evidence that chess is a draw,
And since you apparently did not research the information I gave you--you do not know of recent advances in correspondence chess where the machines with other resources play what appears to be perfect chess--i.e. chess with no errors.
In short, you do not understand chess very well and you certainly do not understand correspondence chess and you have apparently not even bothered to research the information I gave you--so you are misinformed also.
I just think you don't know what bias is. Do you think it has to be intentional?
And since you apparently did not research the information I gave you--you do not know of recent advances in correspondence chess where the machines with other resources play what appears to be perfect chess--i.e. chess with no errors.
According to...
ponz111 Since you think your personal experience in chess is important maybe I can show you how silly it is with an analogy.
Let's say person A believes checkers is a forced draw and person B says it's a win. B says, "It's very likely a win because I've played 5 games, and my dad played 5 games. Almost every time we went first we won. And my dad is really good." A would logically respond, "Well that's not very much experience. Maybe you are wrong and we won't really know for sure until we evaluate every position or come up with a reliable mathematical model."
I would hope you agree with A. After all, there are an estimated 5^11 possible games. They've seen .000 000 001% of possible games. Honestly, B is pretty stupid for being so confident and not realizing how huge a tree checkers creates.
Here's the kicker: you are 10^100 times dumber.
The only reasonable way to make a prediction is to consult an unbiased system. Look at it's W/D/L ratio as it improves and hope you aren't approaching a local minima.
JimDiesel Of course bias is usually not intentional. But sometimes [especially in politics] bias can be intentional. But regardless of if it is intentional or not intentional--correspondence players do not have a bias that they want to draw--they want to win.
Regarding your "According to..." You would not know since you apparently have not done the research.
Regarding your "According to..." You would not know since you apparently have not done the research.
Ya, I'd avoid saying humans and AI, too.
JimDiesel The very best checker players were saying checkers was a draw even though they had played only a very small fraction of the possible games. This was because they understood checkers very well. Experience and understanding the game counts a whole lot both in checkers and chess.
It is not just a coincidence that of the top 1000 chess players on earth that virtually all of them know chess is a draw if neither side makes a mistake which would change the eventual result of the game.
It is also important to realize out of the billions of games played--there has not been even one game where it has been demonstrated to be a forced win from the opening position.
ponz111 okay i just can't talk to you
you either clearly avoid the point of what I say or are too stupid to hold a conversation
@JimDiesel22 pls stop arguing. Finding fault in other people's speech shouldn't be something you should do. I think we should stop insulting others and work on improving ourselves.
I dont think that's the issue. I think he's trying to make sure there is understanding of what is being said. It's hard to have a discussion, or argument, if you aren't sure the other side knows what you said or meant.
Here's a question that could be pondered: If some make believe chess programs, say one called Stockcrab and the other, Leeland, got so good and 100% of their games are draws, would the programs be making perfect moves?
There's one logical response.
Maybe. It depends.
P:atriot It is not true that as ratings go up, the percentage of White wins goes up too. [This assumes that the players are equally rated]
In correspondence chess as the ratings go up--the percentage of White wins goes DOWN. Correspondence chess [where it is a combination of a human and chess engine and research] you have the highest quality games where mistakes are rare at the highest levels.
I'm confused. I always thought as ratings to up, the advantage for white goes up too. I thought you might know for sure. So I just now checked the internet and Wikipedia has an entry on "first move advantage in chess". It has all kinds of references and statistics that say as ability goes up, the first move advantage goes up too.
So why did you say it's not true that as ratings go up whites win percentage goes up?
Also, I just read an article about two computers playing, leela vs. stockfish. That's has to be near the top of chess playing ability. The score was 106 to 94 so they are somewhat close in ability. There were 200 games, 174 were draws. A very high percentage of draws. Of the 26 games that were not draws, 20 were won by white, 6 by black. Isn't that a VERY high percentage of white wins?
JimDiesel Human bias plays little or no role in correspondence chess. And certainly humans who play correspondence chess have no bias towards a draw--they want to win. Example. when I played in the final round of the United States Correspondence Chess Championship--=I was playing for a win every game and out of 14 games played--I won 13.
You seem to have little understanding of chess and correspondence chess if you think humans have a bias towards draws in either game. Humans want to win. The fact that there are more and more draws in correspondence chess is because the game of chess IS A DRAW and humans who wish to win cannot overcome the natural course of a very well played game.l
Regarding B I am not asking you to trust me. I am just stating the fact that as humans get stronger and stronger in chess--they understand chess is a draw. Also, you seem to have a basic misunderstanding about chess and that may be the reason you have apparently not even tried to look at the recent evidence?
Also you made the statement: The top grandmasters draw more often than stockfish vs alpha zero despite being way worse." This statement of yours is not true, Just the opposite is true. Again this shows you have a basic misunderstanding of chess.
Hi, Ponz. I agree that top players play for a win. But I think humans, at least a lot of top grandmasters want to win with minimal risk of losing, whereas computers have no reservations about playing lines humans would consider risky. Some grandmasters are willing to take more risks than others, but I feel that in general humans would prefer to push for a win with a slight stable advantage than calculate a win in an utterly chaotic position.