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.
Will computers ever solve chess?
Sort:
WHO LIkes google
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.
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...
USArmy
White to play--find the one only correct continuation:
Mar 18, 2018
0
#3408
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.
Mar 18, 2018
0
#3409
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
and here is the my solution to the above puzzle:
Mar 18, 2018
0
#3411
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.
Mar 18, 2018
0
#3412
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.
Mar 18, 2018
0
#3413
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?
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.
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."
Mar 18, 2018
0
#3416
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.
You were talking about being down 6 full centipedes--that is your quote.
Mar 18, 2018
0
#3418
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.
Mar 18, 2018
0
#3419
ponz111 wrote:
You were talking about being down 6 full centipedes--that is your quote.
I said centipawns. That is a unit of measure for POSITIONAL analysis... just wow.
Mar 18, 2018
0
#3420
Engines can give drawn positions a big score, like +2
Engines can also give lost positions 0.00
So I'm not sure using engine evals is useful.
Using something like "making the position harder to play" is not useful either because it's relative to the opponent. An imaginary perfect player may always put maximum pressure on their opponent, but even so, if we're just talking about a perfect game and not a perfect player I think a good definition is one where the true eval (win/draw/loss) never changes.
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?