True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides

Maybe I misunderstand from the start but I though this thread was about exchanging the our opinions about the nature of chess and the reason behind these opinions.

Ponz's opinion is that chess is a draw, and his reasons to believe it are the evidence he gave.

My opinion is that I have no idea what the outcome is, and I think I gave some good reason that ponz's arguments do not necessarily give good confidence that chess is a draw.

Of course, everyone is free to think what he wants, but I think this exchange of arguments is interesting. Of course nobody is going to change his mind, but that is not the aim of the discussion.

Now ponz, if you want to close the thread, you should say it clearly.

If you want to continue discussing, I still have one question that you haven't answered yet :

You seem to think (correct me if I am wrong) that GMs and engines now play close to perfection. However in ten years we will have stronger engines capable of beating them 100% of the time, which will show they are not the closest to perfection we can get. These very engines that will beat out GMs will themselves be beaten by yet stronger engines, and so on. In 40 year, we will hence have engines capable of consistently beating engines capable of consitenly beating engines capable of consistently beating engines capable of consistently beating today's chess centaurs. Knowing that, how can we be so sure that we play so close to perfection ? There seems to be many steps to go before reaching that state.

Tron   I asked to close the thread but go no reply. 

To answer your question yes, I think that Centaur Chess is getting fairly close to perfection. It is not there yet [maybe in 10-20 years ]but for one thing they have shown if you want to win--no point in opening 1. e4  

I think they will get better in 40 years but not so much better that they could beat today's Centaur players consistently.  

So I do not know in 40 years the chess engines will be good enough to wipe out today's Centaur Players. Nobody knows.  I do not think it will happen but I do not know.

One thing  I am sure of [and so far facts show I am right] is that as chess advances over time--there will be even more draws.

When I say playing close to prefection, I mean playing chess without errors which would change the outcome of the game.

I posted my own thread here in July named "Does winning involve any luck ?" with 5400 views and some interesting comments. My own personal feeling is your state of mind is the most important, you could be tired, preoccupied with some or other problem, without being aware of it or Jack Daniels plays a role. That's when you make a mistake and "luck" kicks in for your opponent. Same goes vice versa.

I have again made a request to close this forum. I like a good debate but do not like when it causes hard feelings. 

george jetson I get your argument that our heuristics might not even converge towards perfect play as they are refined more and more. It looks a bit counter intuitive to me though, since the way they approach chess is by looking foward a certain amount of move. Once their lookahead gets high enough to see a checkmate or a dead draw from the starting position (we're not there yet), I think they'll be playing perfect chess.

I am not sure I understand very well how engines work though. I heard they sometimes decide not to explore a variation, because they estimate the variation is too bad. Maybe these choices of not exploring all positions prevent them from being able to find perfect play. Is that what you mean ?

Those who are upset are free to leave, surely? I have found this thread instructive, entertaining and puzzling (and continue to do so).

george jetson

a I did not say we are at the limits right now--come on-I did not say that at all

b  Also I did not say computing power will not advance.  Why misquote me?

Regarding todays strongest chess engines. I just got the free version of Stockfish and it is comparable to houdini.  I had it analyze one of my best games.  At one point I forced an endgame where I had a good knight vs a bad bishop.  It did not see I had a big advantage.  It took several moves before it saw this.  So, the positional play is not so good.  Also in the endgame I made a sacrifice of my knight for a pawn.  This I had to calculate several moves before it happened.  It did not "see" this sacrifice until the move I made the  sacrifice and then it took a few seconds but then it said I as abolute winning.  So the best chess engines have weaknesses now but if you combine them with a strong player you have something.

Chess engines are usually very good in tactics--they need to become better in such things as a good knight vs a bad bishop.

So chess engines have room for advancement but even so it you team them up with a strong human the humans can compliment the chess engines.

Asymptotic approach to perfection still means the better engine (or Centaur) will beat a worse one, doesn't it? Or will there come a point short of perfection where draws happen 100% of the time? How close are we to that point?

flurton  it depends how much better one engine is than another.

We now have to chess engines which are very close in strength

Stockfish and Houdini.  While neither is perfect -they are strong and if you comvine them with a very good Centaur Player you do not have perfection yet but they are way more than half way there. I would love to see a long match between the two. I would guess 50% draws.

I do  think that short of perfection we will not have draws 100% of the time but would not be surprised if we have draws 90% of the time.

Hard to say a machine or chess engine ever reaches perfection but even a class B player may happen to make the best moves in a game. 

Sorry, that syllogism mentioned above is the method of @George_Jetless.  Yours too, @Tronchen.

You guys are both cut from the same cloth.  You both make the same methodological assertion about logic, science, and uncertainty, ad nauseum.

Any thoughtful reader will pick this up, if they can wade through your diatribes.

George Jetson  you are ducking my assertion that you misquoted me twice.

Pleas address that.

Deflection.  Followed by dismissal.  You're a sock puppet with time to burn.  Yawn.

george jetson there were two misquotes not one.  Really hard to discuss with you if you are going to misquote me and then use the misquote in your argument.

First please look where I said there were two misquotes and correct.

Then we can go on and I can answer your question or respond to your statements.

If I say something and you turn it around to something I did not say it is very hard to debate you.  Please check if you misquoted me or not do not just say you are sorry IF you misquoted.

I think you are so much into your viewpoint that you do not "hear" what I am saying and thus two misquotes.

Ponz, is your belief that although computers will get much better at chess in the next 40 years, that centaurs will not get much better? 

grayons

Centaurs are humans with the aid of computers. So if computers get better so will Centaurs.   The combination of humans and chess engines together are stronger than just chess engines.  This is why for example playing 1. e4 is almost a wasted White in some levels of Centaur Chess as they know to steer the game into the Petroff Defense.

Right now a Centaur player can evaluate almot any position as winning or losing or drawish.

Just recently I got the free version of stockfish which is said to be as strong as houdini.  I am currently experiencing a kind of Centaur Chess nyself as I have challenged several strong players to challenge games where I take the black side of the Ponziani. unrated games with chess engines allowed and encouraged.  This is quite unusual as it is well known I am an advocate for the Ponziani Opening. 

george jetson there is a difference between "we are at the limits right now" which I did not say and "I think they will get better in 40 years but not so much better that they could beat today's centaur players consistently"

Which was my quote. Do you not see the difference between what you were trying to make me say and what I actually said????  What you are doing is to misquote me and then make an argument from the misquote.

This is the classic strawman tactic.  Misquote or misrepresent what someone says and then knock down the misquote.

And you will not even acknowledge your misquote.

Also I did not say computing power will not advance.  This is another strawman argument where you use your misquote and knock it down.

I  will not be alive in 20 years.  Also I do not have 100K to bet. So you think your son would win ten in a row?

But you are conveniently trying to change the subject about misquotes.

You mentioned one misquote but conveniently did not mention the other.

And there is more than a hair of a difference between your one misquote and what I actually said.

Better not misquote me or I will call you on it.  

ponz I told you the exact same thing yesterday but :

Instead of repeating somebody misquoted you why don't you just explain what you mean ?

Apparently, the reason why today's centaurs will not be consistently beaten by tomorow's engines has nothing to do, in your eyes, with computational power coming to a limit.

So what is the reason? I think this is the fundamental point where people disagree in this thread. We should be discussing that rather than who is misquoting who.

Tronchenbiais   I think todays Centaurs are getting closer to games without errors.  They are not there yet and when I say "errors" I mean games where neither makes a move which would change the outcome of the game.

I know computuational power will go up.  Centaur Chess is really just getting started. When this matures [my guess is about 10 years] Centaurs will practically be unbeatable. [the best Centaurs with the best engines.]

To give an anology   The game of checkers was always thought to be a draw but this was not proven until recently.  However the best checker players could hardly ever be beaten long before the game was solved.

I think in 10 or so years Centaur Chess will have matured and be so good that they could draw against any future chess engine.