Will computers ever solve chess? - Chess Forums - Page 171

ptd570 · 2014-01-22T11:57:20-08:00

Will there ever be a computer strong enough to solve chess to the point where white uses its half tempo advantage to always beat black no matter what moves black plays (in otherwords the same computer can never win with black even after a thousand random games against itself) I beleive one day the

zborg

Mar 18, 2018

0

#3401

@Ponz111, you have the patience of Job(e) in the Bible.

More power to you.

USArmyParatrooper

Mar 18, 2018

0

#3402

ponz111 wrote:

Yes the side that was up [in centipedes] was the best computers at the time AND THEY MADE A MISTAKE [and the human got it right]

There will never be a computer which will solve chess BUT hypothetically if that ever happens then humans will easily play perfect games.

There once was a chess amateur from Kankakee

"Chess is a draw" he would unfailingly decree

He claimed he was right through all the hoopla

But some would say he had too much Chutzpah!

He kept on as he was given the third degree!

If they made a mistake *in their evaluation of the position* then their side WAS NOT UP TO BEGIN WITH, and the CORRECT evaluation is 0.

So you made a dubious claim when you said “one can force a draw even when down 6 full centipawms.”

USArmyParatrooper

Mar 18, 2018

0

#3403

ponz111 wrote:

USArmy now you are back to your Ad hominem attacks. This is what you also did in the forum "True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both sides" [2275 posts]

Do you really believe i am "ineptitude" and have "low ability" in chess? [and in life?]

Brought you by the person who gave us: “I am sorry that you know so little but i cannot help what you don't know.”

Why the ad hominem attack, ponz?

USArmyParatrooper

Mar 18, 2018

0

#3404

And also I’m not attacking you. I really and truly think your cognitive ability to understand concepts that are being explained to you are lacking. I think you need to step back and really think about what is being explained.

KT_17

Mar 18, 2018

0

#3405

WHO LIkes google

KT_17

Mar 18, 2018

0

#3406

ponz111

Mar 18, 2018

0

#3407

USArmyParatrooper wrote:

And also I’m not attacking you. I really and truly think your cognitive ability to understand concepts that are being explained to you are lacking. I think you need to step back and really think about what is being explained.

Sorry i very well understand the concepts you have been telling me and i have responded to these concepts and mentioned where some of these concepts were wrong as they were based on assumptions which are not true.

This is about concepts having to do with chess. Do you really think my chess ability is so low that i do not understand concepts connected with chess?? Do you really think i cannot judge if a move is good or not? Or that i cannot judge if a move is an error or not?

By the way, it is not just me you are denigrating--it is also the vast majority of grandmasters who also believe chess is a draw when neither side makes an error.

Also, i am not a "troll" as you called me in the other forum.

ponz111

Mar 18, 2018

0

#3408

USArmy Here is a quote from you "So you made a dubious claim when you said "One can force a draw even when down 6 full centipedes"

I will give one of the positions i solved which the best chess engines got wrong.

White to play see next post by me...

ponz111

Mar 18, 2018

0

#3409

USArmy

White to play--find the one only correct continuation:

USArmyParatrooper

Mar 18, 2018

0

#3410

A computer that has solved chess will ONLY have two different types of position evaluations.

1. Mate in X

2. 0.00

If a human ever played a “perfect game”, that would mean the super computer evaluated every single move as drawn with literally perfect play on both sides - which would mean every move from start to finish was literally unbeatable.

You should stop viewing things through the lense of the vast limitations of humans and current chess engines.

USArmyParatrooper

Mar 18, 2018

0

#3411

ponz111 wrote:

USArmy

White to play--find the one only correct continuation:

It’s not loading on my side. If there’s a forced draw, the correct evaluation is 0.00

ponz111

Mar 18, 2018

0

#3412

and here is the my solution to the above puzzle:

USArmyParatrooper

Mar 18, 2018

0

#3413

Current engines only use material as a partial evaluation in some positions.

A computer that has SOLVED chess will only evaluate positions by the final outcome with (in this case) literally best play.

USArmyParatrooper

Mar 18, 2018

0

#3414

ponz111 wrote:

USArmyParatrooper wrote:

And also I’m not attacking you. I really and truly think your cognitive ability to understand concepts that are being explained to you are lacking. I think you need to step back and really think about what is being explained.

Sorry i very well understand the concepts you have been telling me and i have responded to these concepts and mentioned where some of these concepts were wrong as they were based on assumptions which are not true.

This is about concepts having to do with chess. Do you really think my chess ability is so low that i do not understand concepts connected with chess?? Do you really think i cannot judge if a move is good or not? Or that i cannot judge if a move is an error or not?

By the way, it is not just me you are denigrating--it is also the vast majority of grandmasters who also believe chess is a draw when neither side makes an error.

Also, i am not a "troll" as you called me in the other forum.

Your responses indicate that NO, you don’t understand what’s being explained to you.

Knowing how to play, the rules of chess, or even playing chess well (having good patern recognition, knowing opening book, being able to see many moves ahead, etc.) have nothing to to with one’s ability to understand concepts being explained in a conversation.

USArmyParatrooper

Mar 18, 2018

0

#3415

ponz111 wrote:

and here is the my solution to the above puzzle:

You showed the solution to a drawn position. And what point are you making?

ponz111

Mar 18, 2018

0

#3416

USArmyParatrooper wrote: ponz in red

A computer that has solved chess will ONLY have two different types of position evaluations.

1. Mate in X

2. 0.00

If a human ever played a “perfect game”, that would mean the super computer evaluated every single move as drawn with literally perfect play on both sides -this is not true at all and one of the places where you keep going wrong. For a human to play a perfect game it is NOT necessary for a super computer to exist at all. It is not necessary for chess to be solved for a human to play a perfect game.

To give one example--A couple of humans could play a perfect game in the year 2018 and not know they played a perfect game. Now suppose it is the year 20180000 and the game of chess is solved. Looking back to the game played in 2018 the computer who solved chess could say that the game played in 2018 was a perfect game. However the game of chess WAS NOT SOLVED in 2018.

[there are other senarios where humans could play a perfect game [or perfect games] and not know they played a perfect game and there are also senarios where a human [or a couple of humans] could play a perfect game and know this.

But anyway just respond to my first senario...

which would mean every move from start to finish was literally unbeatable.

ponz111

Mar 18, 2018

0

#3417

USArmyParatrooper wrote:

ponz111 wrote:

and here is the my solution to the above puzzle:

You showed the solution to a drawn position. And what point are you making?

i proved your statement was incorrect when you stated:"So you made the dubious claim when you said one can force a draw even when down 6 full centipedes."

USArmyParatrooper

Mar 18, 2018

0

#3418

ponz111 wrote:

USArmyParatrooper wrote:

ponz111 wrote:

and here is the my solution to the above puzzle:

You showed the solution to a drawn position. And what point are you making?

i proved your statement was incorrect when you stated:"So you made the dubious claim when you said one can force a draw even when down 6 full centipedes."

I was talking about position evaluation, not material advantage.

ponz111

Mar 18, 2018

0

#3419

You were talking about being down 6 full centipedes--that is your quote.

USArmyParatrooper

Mar 18, 2018

0

#3420

ponz111 wrote:

USArmyParatrooper wrote: ponz in red

A computer that has solved chess will ONLY have two different types of position evaluations.

1. Mate in X

2. 0.00

If a human ever played a “perfect game”, that would mean the super computer evaluated every single move as drawn with literally perfect play on both sides -this is not true at all and one of the places where you keep going wrong. For a human to play a perfect game it is NOT necessary for a super computer to exist at all. It is not necessary for chess to be solved for a human to play a perfect game.

To give one example--A couple of humans could play a perfect game in the year 2018 and not know they played a perfect game. Now suppose it is the year 20180000 and the game of chess is solved. Looking back to the game played in 2018 the computer who solved chess could say that the game played in 2018 was a perfect game. However the game of chess WAS NOT SOLVED in 2018.

[there are other senarios where humans could play a perfect game [or perfect games] and not know they played a perfect game and there are also senarios where a human [or a couple of humans] could play a perfect game and know this.

But anyway just respond to my first senario...

which would mean every move from start to finish was literally unbeatable.

“For a human to play a perfect game it is NOT necessary for a super computer to exist at all.”

I NEVER SAID IT WAS NECESSARY.

Once again you fail to grasp what’s being explained.