I think I'll check back after computers solve chess. 
Will computers ever solve chess?
Sort:
FBloggs wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
I guess I didn't answer your question the way I should have. If white begins with the chances of winning at 52 to 55% isn't that a theoretical win? If a casino had chances of winning at 55% and 45% of losing wouldn't that be considered a pretty huge advantage? I think the reason white wins more is because people are terrible chess players. That and also because chess isn't solved, or played perfectly. If it were played perfectly, then white would win 100% of the time. But even computers dont play perfectly so probably more computer games are won by white I would guess. Maybe it just comes down to our opinions on what an advantage is. I think 55% is a huge advantage, you think it should be higher. We both agree white has an advantage, so what do you think whites winning percentage should be even with our current terrible level of play? 60%? More? Do you or anyone else know what the percentage of games won is by the world chess champion? I would think if it's around 55% that should be enough to win most tournaments. That to me is a pretty big advantage and I think over time as computers get better that number will rise until it eventually gets to 100%.
No, white doesn't begin with a theoretical win. White begins with a slight advantage - not a winning advantage. One would expect the side that begins with even a slight advantage to win more games than the other side over time.
Forget about races and casinos. Both are poor analogies. And even good analogies are not necessary. We're discussing chess. I don't even understand your point now. You say the reason white wins more is that people are terrible chess players - but then you also say that if the game was played perfectly, white would win 100%. People are terrible chess players? Some are of course but some are outstanding. You consider Magnus Carlsen a terrible chess player just because Alpha Zero is stronger? You also said that I think white's winning percentage should be higher than 55%. That's not true. I said the range of 52% to 55% is consistent with beginning the game with a small (but not decisive) advantage - but that if white's first move advantage was decisive, it would be much higher. You say it would be much higher if people weren't terrible chess players. Apparently you believe people are only terrible when they play with the white pieces. Apparently people are quite good when they play with the black pieces - because, according to you, they start out with a lost game and end up with a winning percentage of 45% to 48%. That's impressive. You still haven't explained why black does so well if he begins with a theoretically lost game. And at this point, I don't expect you to address that issue.
I'm going to leave it at that. I think I've made strong arguments but they've been ignored. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.
The reason I haven't explained why black does so well is because black does not do so well. White does well. I think you believe white winning 52 to 55% of the time is not as good as it should be. I think it's higher than it should be with such a small advantage like moving first. My reason that people, and computers, are simply not very good compared to how good computers will be in the future. People make very big mistakes playing chess. Like I said, there is no such thing as perfect play or solved chess so speculating on what would happen with perfect play doesn't mean anything. No one has ever seen it. As for the race analogy, chess is also a race. It's a race against time to get the best position, much like a track runner. If one runner starts out with an advantage, such as going first, if both sides then run "perfectly" meaning no other advantage or disadvantage from either side, the side going first will always win. The exception would be if one side makes a mistake in which case the runner that goes second could win or it could be a draw finishing at the exact same time. But since the question is about "perfect" which no one has ever seen it just seems logical to me that nothing can beat perfection. Even perfection by the side that goes second can never catch up, just like in a race. One good way to look at it in my opinion is to compare how computers do against each other and also any connection between ratings and the percentage of white wins. As computer (or people) ratings get higher do the percentage of white wins change? Someone else suggested that higher ratings equal higher winning percentages for white. If that's true then ultimately wouldn't very advanced computers in the future be able to win with white even more often than now? Maybe to the point where white always wins?
That is the belief now: that White begins with a slight advantage, which is reflected in the percentage of won games by White and lost games by Black.
But nobody plays perfect games—far from it, especially in the opening—so the percentage reflects that belief and the imperfect play of the present and pest.
So who really knows? It could be that White has a theoretical win from the beginning, or Black has a theoretical win from the beginning. Anything is possible.
Elroch wrote:
In the 19th century, white's advantage was between 52% and 53%. By the 1930s it was up to 54%. In most modern databases it seems to be around 55% (chess.com's data gives about 55.5%).
In the 1200 games between AlphaZero and Stockfish using specified openings each of which had 100,000 recorded examples in a database (i.e. the most popular mainlines), white scored 58.7% (standard error 0.69% ) In the 100 game match between the same two engines with complete freedom in the opening, white scored 61% (standard error 2.4%).
With the trend observed as chess knowledge has advanced, plus the hint of further increases in white advantage as play becomes even stronger, it would be unwise to be too sure that the theoretical result of chess is a draw. Think of it this way, if white ever got to 75% in empirical results, the two hypotheses would have equal standing even without extrapolating further. With the results above around 60% we are already quite a long distance from 50% to that point, and heading strongly in one direction.
There are two factors at play in the empirical results. One is the more comfortable task that white has which leads to a computational advantage and an effective rating boost, and the other is the noise introduced by the errors of the two players. The fact that doubling computing power has less and less effect at higher levels might suggest that white would have less advantage, but it is clear that the reduction in noise from errors is the stronger effect and dominates this.
The empirical advantage of the first move is increasing, and we cannot be sure how far this will go: there is certainly no sign of the trend stopping yet.
You said it much better than me. If what you say is true, there definitely seems to be a trend. I still say it's all guesses and speculation because no one has ever seen perfect play, but if increased ratings equals higher winning percentages by white it seems reasonable to assume we will ultimately have an answer. Maybe one side will never always win, but with "perfect play" white ends up winning 78.4% of the time or something. At which point I guess games would have be be handicapped to accomodate the white advantage.
With perfect play there can only be one of three results--win for White or win for Black or draw.
If White wins 78.4% of the time then in many games there was no perfect play.
Feb 15, 2018
0
#3008
For some strange reason, my gut tells me that, contrary to popular opinion, the game isn't in fact drawn with perfect play. I don't know why, but my gut tells me that white begins the game in zugzwang. White to play and lose.
LosingAndLearning81 wrote:
For some strange reason, my gut tells me that, contrary to popular opinion, the game isn't in fact drawn with perfect play. I don't know why, but my gut tells me that white begins the game in zugzwang. White to play and lose.
Your gut must be wrong. It makes no sense that white wins more games than black - even though he begins with a theoretically lost game. Your theory supposes that the same players - play considerably better with the white pieces than with the black pieces.
LosingAndLearning81 wrote:
For some strange reason, my gut tells me that, contrary to popular opinion, the game isn't in fact drawn with perfect play. I don't know why, but my gut tells me that white begins the game in zugzwang. White to play and lose.
That totally makes sense. 1. e4 resigns!
FBloggs wrote:
LosingAndLearning81 wrote:
For some strange reason, my gut tells me that, contrary to popular opinion, the game isn't in fact drawn with perfect play. I don't know why, but my gut tells me that white begins the game in zugzwang. White to play and lose.
Your gut must be wrong. It makes no sense that white wins more games than black - even though he begins with a theoretically lost game. Your theory supposes that the same players - play considerably better with the white pieces than with the black pieces.
That is faulty logic: you cannot apply percentages of games played with imperfect moves to counter a speculation about a game played with perfect moves. It is still a speculation, but it is possible, and it cannot be refuted by illustrating percentages from imperfect games: that is a horse of a completely different color.
The percentages of wins, loses and draws of imperfect games mean nothing when it comes to a perfect game. It is irrelevant what happens when there are mistakes on both sides, from the vantage point of the perfect game, where no mistakes happen.
troy7915 wrote:
FBloggs wrote:
LosingAndLearning81 wrote:
For some strange reason, my gut tells me that, contrary to popular opinion, the game isn't in fact drawn with perfect play. I don't know why, but my gut tells me that white begins the game in zugzwang. White to play and lose.
Your gut must be wrong. It makes no sense that white wins more games than black - even though he begins with a theoretically lost game. Your theory supposes that the same players - play considerably better with the white pieces than with the black pieces.
That is faulty logic: you cannot apply percentages of games played with imperfect moves to counter a speculation about a game played with perfect moves. It is still a speculation, but it is possible, and it cannot be refuted by illustrating percentages from imperfect games: that is a horse of a completely different color.
The percentages of wins, loses and draws of imperfect games mean nothing when it comes to a perfect game. It is irrelevant what happens when there are mistakes on both sides, from the vantage point of the perfect game, where no mistakes happen.
Duh! Of course it's a speculation! We don't know so we speculate, Einstein.
If AlphaZero can draw itself, chess will never be solved.
To the post above the one above:
You missed the whole point.
The first poster offered a speculation, applicable to a perfect game only, which has the potential to become a fact in the future.
But you rejected his speculation, saying his gut was wrong, using facts that have no relevance to a perfect game.
Therefore, the refutation is invalid.
Actually there have been hundreds of perfect games played.
You’re not clear about what we mean by a perfect game:
A perfect game can only becproclaimed perfect when all the variations of all the possible games have been taken into account.
Otherwise, what you now call perfect may prove to be full of errors from that perspective.
By a "perfect game" I mean "a game played with no errors by either side."
By that definition--there have been hundreds [actually much more than hundreds] of perfect games played.
That’s not a perfect game. You are assuming that there have been no errors. But until you exhaust all the possibilities, who’s to say that 1. a3 is not stronger than 1. e4? ( going back to that speculation of a Zugzwang, or semi-Zugzwang)
What if 1. e4 loses by force or 1. e4 c5 loses by brute force, after 50.000 or 50 million moves?
What if it’s a draw with best play?
You cannot call anything perfect until you have the complete picture.
Therefore, those ‘hundreds of perfect games’ are but a speculation as to their alleged perfection. For the time being, the label perfect attributed to any single game is no more than a speculation.
ponz111 wrote:
Actually there have been hundreds of perfect games played.
Name one. Troy is right. Until you exhaust all possibilities, how do you know it's perfect? 500 years ago a "perfect" game was probably played. Today that same game can be displayed with all it's imperfections. A "perfect" game today will be shown to be very imperfect 500 years from now. Even the worlds best computers cannot play a perfect game because there is always another variation that does better. As Elroch said, whites winning advantage gets better and better over time. So we are still a long way off from a truly perfect, or solved, game. What I now wonder about is the rate of improvement for whites winning percentages. According to all the statistics is whites winning odds staying at the same rate of improvement? Or as ratings and ability increase, is whites winning odds increasing even more?
lfPatriotGames wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
Actually there have been hundreds of perfect games played.
Name one. Troy is right. Until you exhaust all possibilities, how do you know it's perfect? 500 years ago a "perfect" game was probably played. Today that same game can be displayed with all it's imperfections. A "perfect" game today will be shown to be very imperfect 500 years from now. Even the worlds best computers cannot play a perfect game because there is always another variation that does better. As Elroch said, whites winning advantage gets better and better over time. So we are still a long way off from a truly perfect, or solved, game. What I now wonder about is the rate of improvement for whites winning percentages. According to all the statistics is whites winning odds staying at the same rate of improvement? Or as ratings and ability increase, is whites winning odds increasing even more?
i will post a perfect game--a game where neither side made a mistake...
I guess I didn't answer your question the way I should have. If white begins with the chances of winning at 52 to 55% isn't that a theoretical win? If a casino had chances of winning at 55% and 45% of losing wouldn't that be considered a pretty huge advantage? I think the reason white wins more is because people are terrible chess players. That and also because chess isn't solved, or played perfectly. If it were played perfectly, then white would win 100% of the time. But even computers dont play perfectly so probably more computer games are won by white I would guess. Maybe it just comes down to our opinions on what an advantage is. I think 55% is a huge advantage, you think it should be higher. We both agree white has an advantage, so what do you think whites winning percentage should be even with our current terrible level of play? 60%? More? Do you or anyone else know what the percentage of games won is by the world chess champion? I would think if it's around 55% that should be enough to win most tournaments. That to me is a pretty big advantage and I think over time as computers get better that number will rise until it eventually gets to 100%.
No, white doesn't begin with a theoretical win. White begins with a slight advantage - not a winning advantage. One would expect the side that begins with even a slight advantage to win more games than the other side over time.
Forget about races and casinos. Both are poor analogies. And even good analogies are not necessary. We're discussing chess.
I don't even understand your point now. You say the reason white wins more is that people are terrible chess players - but then you also say that if the game was played perfectly, white would win 100%. People are terrible chess players? Some are of course but some are outstanding. You consider Magnus Carlsen a terrible chess player just because Alpha Zero is stronger? You also said that I think white's winning percentage should be higher than 55%. That's not true. I said the range of 52% to 55% is consistent with beginning the game with a small (but not decisive) advantage - but that if white's first move advantage was decisive, it would be much higher. You say it would be much higher if people weren't terrible chess players. Apparently you believe people are only terrible when they play with the white pieces. Apparently people are quite good when they play with the black pieces - because, according to you, they start out with a lost game and end up with a winning percentage of 45% to 48%. That's impressive. You still haven't explained why black does so well if he begins with a theoretically lost game. And at this point, I don't expect you to address that issue.
I'm going to leave it at that. I think I've made strong arguments but they've been ignored. We're just going to have to agree to disagree.