I agree with you.
Will computers ever solve chess?
Sort:
Mar 21, 2018
0
#3685
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
Goh, I’ve already repeatedly said humans can find perfect moves in some positions. That’s a far cry from playing an entire perfect game, where every move is perfect.
I only give the example because you seem to be giving a perfect move undue respect. I was just showing in some positions it's trivially easy to find a perfect move. In fact if all legal moves are perfect then you only need to know the rules.
Ok, so what qualities in a position cause its best and worst moves to be different? Things like non-symmetry between the black and white pieces, the number of forcing moves available, the amount of "contact" between the black and white pieces (not only attack each other, but influencing the same squares).
Why is this list important? Because with it we see that in the starting position the difference between most moves (from an EGTB perspective) is likely nothing. Almost all legal moves, we can assume, maintain the draw.
So what if the game progresses in a way that maintains symmetry, doesn't contain potential threats, has little contact between forces, etc.?
Well, we get a game like the exchange french I showed you. A game where it appears even though the players were both sub-master level the game was perfect.
Yes we don't know that for sure, but we can make logical arguments (as above) that claim it's likely perfect.
Then we note that millions (if not over a billion by now) games of chess have been played... so the likelihood increases that a perfect game has been played at some point by humans... the objection that stockfish could have won if it took over from such and such a position against one of the players is mistaking a perfect player and a perfect game.
Mar 21, 2018
0
#3686
s23bog wrote:
So, chessbase/blundercheck is how you would search for mistakes.
In what order do you search through the games? Do you divvy them up by score first? Maybe check the black wins first, then the draws, then the white wins? Some other order?
When you have found some game that pass that check for errors, are there more rigorous checks that you would do? Are do you assume that those games are "perfect"?
We have no tools to determine if an entire game is perfect.
Mar 21, 2018
0
#3687
Of course it sounds absurd to say that 2000 vs 1800 (IIRC) game I posted was perfect... because in the colloquial sense, as I said before, we mean perfect more along the lines of posing the most problems for your opponent while at the same time not making mistakes.
But in the EGTB type of perspective we might be able to say it was perfect.
4960: He doesn’t get it.
Mar 21, 2018
0
#3689
godsofhell1235 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
Goh, I’ve already repeatedly said humans can find perfect moves in some positions. That’s a far cry from playing an entire perfect game, where every move is perfect.
I only give the example because you seem to be giving a perfect move undo respect. I was just showing in some positions it's trivially easy to find a perfect move. In fact if all legal moves are perfect then you only need to know the rules.
Ok, so what qualities in a position cause its best and worst moves to be different? Things like non-symmetry between the black and white pieces, the number of forcing moves available, the amount of "contact" between the black and white pieces (not only attack each other, but influencing the same squares).
Why is this list important? Because with it we see that in the starting position the difference between most moves (from an EGTB perspective) is likely nothing. Almost all legal moves, we can assume, maintain the draw.
So what if the game progresses in a way that maintains symmetry, doesn't contain potential threats, has little contact between forces, etc.?
Well, we get a game like the exchange french I showed you. A game where it appears even though the players were both sub-master level the game was perfect.
Yes we don't know that for sure, but we can make logical arguments (as above) that claim it's likely perfect.
Then we note that millions (if not over a billion by now) games of chess have been played... so the likelihood increases that a perfect game has been played at some point by humans... the objection that stockfish could have won if it took over from such and such a position against one of the players is mistaking a perfect player and a perfect game.
If I acknowledge humans can find perfect moves in some positions, how is that giving perfect moves undo respect?
A perfect, game? I don’t think you’re giving that its due respect. You seem to be thinking too small here. We do positional analysis with things like how active are pieces, how much control of the center, etc. because we cannot solve chess. You can’t think of it in those terms.
Current computers also use positional and material analysis to give a numeric assessment of the position. But from the standpoint of chess being solved, there are ONLY two types of assessments for any given position, including the starting position.
1. 0.00 (The game is drawn with best play from both sides)
or
2. Mate in X (for white or black, with best play from both sides.)
In the kings gambit, after (2. f4) does either side have forced mate? Is it possible that black wins by force (Mate in 152 with best play on both sides)?
If you don’t know the answer to that, you can’t possibly answer if any perfect games have ever been played.
not to debate (really...) but only for blunder, not for mistake. If i say mistake i would have to provide an etimological historical Philosophical , ******cal explanation to pass the forum and so i choose blunder.
The "word" error is semantically questionable for which "blunder" is safe from sophism.
Mar 21, 2018
0
#3691
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
Goh, I’ve already repeatedly said humans can find perfect moves in some positions. That’s a far cry from playing an entire perfect game, where every move is perfect.
I only give the example because you seem to be giving a perfect move undo respect. I was just showing in some positions it's trivially easy to find a perfect move. In fact if all legal moves are perfect then you only need to know the rules.
Ok, so what qualities in a position cause its best and worst moves to be different? Things like non-symmetry between the black and white pieces, the number of forcing moves available, the amount of "contact" between the black and white pieces (not only attack each other, but influencing the same squares).
Why is this list important? Because with it we see that in the starting position the difference between most moves (from an EGTB perspective) is likely nothing. Almost all legal moves, we can assume, maintain the draw.
So what if the game progresses in a way that maintains symmetry, doesn't contain potential threats, has little contact between forces, etc.?
Well, we get a game like the exchange french I showed you. A game where it appears even though the players were both sub-master level the game was perfect.
Yes we don't know that for sure, but we can make logical arguments (as above) that claim it's likely perfect.
Then we note that millions (if not over a billion by now) games of chess have been played... so the likelihood increases that a perfect game has been played at some point by humans... the objection that stockfish could have won if it took over from such and such a position against one of the players is mistaking a perfect player and a perfect game.
If I acknowledge humans can find perfect moves in some positions, how is that giving perfect moves undo respect?
A perfect, game? I don’t think you’re giving that its due respect. You seem to be thinking too small here. We do positional analysis with things like how active are pieces, how much control of the center, etc. because we cannot solve chess. You can’t think of it in those terms.
Current computers also use positional and material analysis to give a numeric assessment of the position. But from the standpoint of chess being solved, there are ONLY two types of assessments for any given position, including the starting position.
1. 0.00 (The game is drawn with best play from both sides)
or
2. Mate in X (for white or black, with best play from both sides.)
In the kings gambit, after (2. f4) does either side have forced mate? Is it possible that black wins by force (Mate in 152 with best play on both sides)?
If you don’t know the answer to that, you can’t possibly answer if any perfect games have ever been played.
The list I make, e.g. symmetry and contact (and potential contact) between sides isn't arbitrary.
Yes we use them as a crutch, but they're also actually effective.
In any case this is easy enough to test with the EGTBs we already have.
For example, construct for me a position that is symmetrical, where each side has many legal moves (if it were their turn) and where there are few threats (checks, captures, queening pawns, etc).
Construct a position like this where the EGTB evaluation is not "draw."
I assume such a construction is impossible. So it's reasonable to assume these are not arbitrary conditions, and if we both agree they apply to the opening position as well as endgames, it's hard to understand an objection to why they wouldn't apply to the middlegame.
A middlegame like the one I posted earlier (the exchange french) 
Mar 21, 2018
0
#3692
s23bog wrote:
So, no, you do not assume the games are perfect after passing a test or two. In fact, after passing all tests known to man, we cannot assume the game is perfect.
Again, I think you're giving undue weight to what it means for a game to be perfect under our rather lenient definition.
Ok maybe we can't say it's very likely to be perfect, but we can make rational arguments, using real criteria, that argue for a certain likelihood (certainly above impossible) that it's perfect.
After that we just observe that millions/over a billion games have been played, and then we claim that it's statistically likely (and very much not impossible) that a perfect game has been played.
Mar 21, 2018
0
#3693
godsofhell1235 wrote:
s23bog wrote:
So, no, you do not assume the games are perfect after passing a test or two. In fact, after passing all tests known to man, we cannot assume the game is perfect.
Again, I think you're giving undue weight to what it means for a game to be perfect under our rather lenient definition.
Ok maybe we can't say it's very likely to be perfect, but we can make rational arguments, using real criteria, that argue for a certain likelihood (certainly above impossible) that it's perfect.
After that we just observe that millions/over a billion games have been played, and then we claim that it's statistically likely (and very much not impossible) that a perfect game has been played.
Using any tools at your disposal, any at all. Can you tell me if in the kings gambit, after 2. e4 there are any lines where black wins by force?
Mar 21, 2018
0
#3694
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:
s23bog wrote:
So, no, you do not assume the games are perfect after passing a test or two. In fact, after passing all tests known to man, we cannot assume the game is perfect.
Again, I think you're giving undue weight to what it means for a game to be perfect under our rather lenient definition.
Ok maybe we can't say it's very likely to be perfect, but we can make rational arguments, using real criteria, that argue for a certain likelihood (certainly above impossible) that it's perfect.
After that we just observe that millions/over a billion games have been played, and then we claim that it's statistically likely (and very much not impossible) that a perfect game has been played.
Using any tools at your disposal, any at all. Can you tell me if in the kings gambit, after 2. e4 there are any lines where black wins by force?
I've actually been looking at KG lines somewhat seriously.
Very annoyingly it seems white can always equalize.
(But even more annoying from a practical perspective, white can purposefully not equalize, and get very dangerous initiatives in completely chaotic positions.)
---
Anyway I don't know why we're using an opening that's both non-symmetrical and creates serious potential threats (moving the f pawn is not equivalent to moving the c pawn due to the king and queen making the board asymmetrical along the vertical axis). i.e. the open h4-e1 diagonal.
Mar 21, 2018
0
#3695
godsofhell1235 wrote:
s23bog wrote:
So, no, you do not assume the games are perfect after passing a test or two. In fact, after passing all tests known to man, we cannot assume the game is perfect.
Again, I think you're giving undue weight to what it means for a game to be perfect under our rather lenient definition.
Ok maybe we can't say it's very likely to be perfect, but we can make rational arguments, using real criteria, that argue for a certain likelihood (certainly above impossible) that it's perfect.
After that we just observe that millions/over a billion games have been played, and then we claim that it's statistically likely (and very much not impossible) that a perfect game has been played.
The problem is the word “perfect” by its very definition doesn’t give way to room for leniency.
Mar 21, 2018
0
#3696
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:
s23bog wrote:
So, no, you do not assume the games are perfect after passing a test or two. In fact, after passing all tests known to man, we cannot assume the game is perfect.
Again, I think you're giving undue weight to what it means for a game to be perfect under our rather lenient definition.
Ok maybe we can't say it's very likely to be perfect, but we can make rational arguments, using real criteria, that argue for a certain likelihood (certainly above impossible) that it's perfect.
After that we just observe that millions/over a billion games have been played, and then we claim that it's statistically likely (and very much not impossible) that a perfect game has been played.
The problem is the word “perfect” by its very definition doesn’t give way to room for leniency.
Yeah, but like my (admittedly trivial) example, sometimes all moves are perfect.
No room for leniency? In a certain sense yes, but when every legal move is perfect... you can't get any more lenient than that.
Mar 21, 2018
0
#3697
godsofhell1235 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:
s23bog wrote:
So, no, you do not assume the games are perfect after passing a test or two. In fact, after passing all tests known to man, we cannot assume the game is perfect.
Again, I think you're giving undue weight to what it means for a game to be perfect under our rather lenient definition.
Ok maybe we can't say it's very likely to be perfect, but we can make rational arguments, using real criteria, that argue for a certain likelihood (certainly above impossible) that it's perfect.
After that we just observe that millions/over a billion games have been played, and then we claim that it's statistically likely (and very much not impossible) that a perfect game has been played.
Using any tools at your disposal, any at all. Can you tell me if in the kings gambit, after 2. e4 there are any lines where black wins by force?
I've actually been looking at KG lines somewhat seriously.
Very annoyingly it seems white can always equalize.
(But even more annoying from a practical perspective, white can purposefully not equalize, and get very dangerous initiatives in completely chaotic positions.)
---
Anyway I don't know why we're using an opening that's both non-symmetrical and creates serious potential threats (moving the f pawn is not equivalent to moving the c pawn due to the king and queen making the board asymmetrical along the vertical axis). i.e. the open h4-g1 diagonal.
So does that mean you cannot determine if there is a forced win for either side? (let’s assume a computer that has solved chess, sat down at that position and played both sides)
Mar 21, 2018
0
#3698
godsofhell1235 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:
s23bog wrote:
So, no, you do not assume the games are perfect after passing a test or two. In fact, after passing all tests known to man, we cannot assume the game is perfect.
Again, I think you're giving undue weight to what it means for a game to be perfect under our rather lenient definition.
Ok maybe we can't say it's very likely to be perfect, but we can make rational arguments, using real criteria, that argue for a certain likelihood (certainly above impossible) that it's perfect.
After that we just observe that millions/over a billion games have been played, and then we claim that it's statistically likely (and very much not impossible) that a perfect game has been played.
The problem is the word “perfect” by its very definition doesn’t give way to room for leniency.
Yeah, but like my (admittedly trivial) example, sometimes all moves are perfect.
No room for leniency? In a certain sense yes, but when every legal move is perfect... you can't get any more lenient than that.
If all moves that got you to those respective positions in the first place were not perfect, then all moves were not perfect.
I’m talking about perfect games, not perfect moves. I already agreed that humans can find perfect moves in some very select positions.
Mar 21, 2018
0
#3699
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
So does that mean you cannot determine if there is a forced win for either side? (let’s assume a computer that has solved chess, sat down at that position and played both sides)
Correct. I can't determine if it's a forced win for either side.
I have no idea where you're going with this.
For example, I never claimed I could determine whether or not a game is perfect.
I did, however, offer objective criteria for whether a position has many perfect moves i.e. leniency.
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
I’m talking about perfect games, not perfect moves.
A position is not a game, but a game is made up of positions. If a game is comprised of all such positions, then we can use my criteria of e.g. symmetry and contact to argue for the likelihood of a game being perfect.
hi