vickalan wrote:
@godsofhell1235. that's a nice diagram!
I agree.
It shows the truth.
Will computers ever solve chess?
Sort:
vickalan wrote:
btickler wrote:
...You say on page 60ish that it could take 18 years...
Now that you understand that a Venn diagram is not a representation of scope or magnitude, you should understand this now: the number of mathematical operations required to solve chess is unknown, and therefore the amount of time required to solve chess is unknown. Eighteen years is within the span of time which is unknown:
Anything new you'd like to say? Or is this the limits of your imagination?
----
Vickalan changes his tune: "If I must make a guess, I would say Yes chess will be solved within 200 years or so." (page 109)
Mar 25, 2018
0
#4004
godsofhell1235 wrote:
Yeah, it's not dumb luck.
I'll say again that, elementally, checkmate is just mobility (or lack thereof).
At the foundation of human-created strategy is mobility. Hell, the relative values are based off mobility. It's common for a beginner's class to place a piece on an empty board and note how many square they control.
Queen controls the most? Worth the most. That easy.
Knight not as much as bishops, but they can hop over others and visit every square.
This is real knowledge. Piece values have been statistically derived (kauffman) and nearly match the classic 9,5,3,3,1. Recently alpha zero taught itself completely independently from humans (and to a lesser extent top engines are improved in similar ways i.e. a human isn't telling it how to play better).
And they independently discover human openings. They're not playing 1.Na3. Why? Because of mobility. Because of the center.
All this to say: our strategic understanding is not imaginary. It would be a mistake to think we (or at least engines) don't find perfect moves much more often than we're able to prove we do.
Yes, I provided a loose argument why this was very likely so a little while back.
Mar 25, 2018
0
#4005
Elroch wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:
Yeah, it's not dumb luck.
I'll say again that, elementally, checkmate is just mobility (or lack thereof).
At the foundation of human-created strategy is mobility. Hell, the relative values are based off mobility. It's common for a beginner's class to place a piece on an empty board and note how many square they control.
Queen controls the most? Worth the most. That easy.
Knight not as much as bishops, but they can hop over others and visit every square.
This is real knowledge. Piece values have been statistically derived (kauffman) and nearly match the classic 9,5,3,3,1. Recently alpha zero taught itself completely independently from humans (and to a lesser extent top engines are improved in similar ways i.e. a human isn't telling it how to play better).
And they independently discover human openings. They're not playing 1.Na3. Why? Because of mobility. Because of the center.
All this to say: our strategic understanding is not imaginary. It would be a mistake to think we (or at least engines) don't find perfect moves much more often than we're able to prove we do.
Yes, I provided a loose argument why this was very likely so a little while back.
I gave it one line of acknowledgement buried somewhere back there in a different post.
Your post was something like there are often many "best" moves in a position, and strong players don't play arbitrarily, so best moves are (probably) often chosen.
In any case I liked your reasoning 
There is another forum [with more than 2000 posts] which asks the question:
True or False, Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides?
Now the same or similar question is debated here.
Note the question was not True or False it can Be Math Proven that Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides?
That would be "no" at least for now it cannot be math proven. It would be a trivial question.
In my opinion Chess IS a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides. Some say my opinion is stupid because i cannot math prove my opinion. I say one does not have to math prove something to have an opinion about something. I also say one does not have to math prove something to say it is a fact. Many things are a fact which have not been math proved. It is a fact that i am typing this but i cannot math prove it is a fact.
Circumstantial evidence leads me to believe i am typing this. Circumstantial evidence leads me to believe that chess is a draw with best play for both sides.
Some say i should not use circumstantial evidence because each piece of the evidence by itself does not prove anything.
What is the circumstantial evidence that i am typing this? One piece of circumstantial evidence is that i own a keyboard. This in itself, does not prove i am typing this. However it is a fact that i am typing this.
Many things have been proved using circumstantial evidence. I do not agree with those who say i must have math proof to have a "sufficient" proof of my opinion on this chess question. I do not agree. First, the word "sufficent" has several meanings. One is "adequate for the purpose". What is the purpose? My purpose is to have an opinion on the question True or False, Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides.
Many very strong players agree that chess is a draw with best play from both sides. They do not have math proof of this. But they do have a lot of evidence this is true.
This is not an argument ad population as first it is not an argument and 2nd if it was an argument it is qualified by "many strong players" Example, "many doctors state comsuming too much refined sugar may cause diabetis" Is the an argument ad population? NO, because doctors are experts in the field.
As for those people who say we do not know anything about chess or who say the best chess engines cannot play perfect moves. The evidence is against both of these statements.
As for me saying i am 99.99% sure that chess is a draw per the circumstances given--this is my own estimate of the chance that i am correct. Why didn't I say 99.48%--the answer is because it is an estimate and estimates can have varying ranges.
btickler wrote:
...Vickalan changes his tune: "If I must make a guess, I would say Yes chess will be solved within 200 years or so." (page 109)
I think you're getting the hang of it - the number of mathematical operations required to solve chess is unknown, and therefore the amount of time required to solve chess is unknown. 200 years is also within the span of time which is unknown.
ponz111 wrote:
In my opinion Chess IS a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides. Some say my opinion is stupid
Many very strong players agree that chess is a draw with best play from both sides. They do not have math proof of this. But they do have a lot of evidence this is true.
Apparently Kasparov did no find ‘enough evidence’ to express the fact about the final outcome of a perfect game. He may well have an opinion, but understanding his opinion is not a fact, but just an opinion, he kept it to himself. Because it’s an opinion, it’s not relevant in the context of discussing facts.
Some people simply have logic, strong players or not, which strength proves nothing in this context.
As for the first repeated misunderstanding, ponz’s opinion ( or anybody’s for that matter ) is neither stupid nor smart. It is just not a fact. Even a smart opinion cannot be more than what it is: an opinion. It can never be more than an opinion. A smart opinion is still not a fact.
Say X believes something is true 99.99%. That means for her/him, that something may not be a fact, even if he/she believes that to be true only 0.01%.
From their own vantage point, there might be a chance it’s not true. Note I said ‘from their vantage point’. In itself, that something is either a fact or a non-fact. But from X’s perspective, as long as they leave the door open for another possibility, it is not a fact, for them.
They want to both leave the possibility door open and closed at the same time. Not possible.
If it’s an opinion it’s not a fact, from their vantage point.
ponz111 wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
troy it is a logical fallacy to consider the game of chess could end in a draw or in a loss or in a win and that means that since there are 3 possibilities that means each possibility has a 33% chance of happening...Ludic logical fallacy
It could be one of three options. So the chances you are correct by picking any one of them are 33.33%. If there were more options to choose from, the percentage being much smaller, the impulse to speculate would be even more futile.
But one chance in three to be right? Speculate if you feel you must: just don’t pretend it’s not a speculation, ultimately.
After all, 33% or 99% —same difference: they’re both not a fact.
Of course, your coming up with the actual number of 99% has no mathematical basis, whereas 33% has.
I will give an anology. Here are 3 possibilities concerning where my dog sleeps. 90% of the time he sleeps on our bed. 6% of the time he sleeps on the floor. 4% of the time he sleeps under our bed.
Do you really think if we do not know where he is sleeping now--that each of the 3 possibilities is equally likely?
Guessing the outcome of a perfect game by looking at the outcome of imperfect games is flawed. No one knows anything about a perfect game.
That’s why I gave it a one-in-three shot. It’s purely random.
Elroch wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:
Many moves of strong engines are perfect.
A wild speculation. It is meaningless to play a perfect move on your 25th move, if you already played 24 imperfect moves.
After playing one imperfect move, the notion of perfect loses its meaning. Strong engines may play strong moves, maybe even perfect, but nobody knows they don’t commit blunders galore where we see ‘perfect’... We can speculate but we don’t know. Only a supercomputer would know, which was the whole point here.
There is a fairly strong argument that many (probably most) moves of strong players are perfect in the precise sense of not changing the theoretical result.
The first element of the argument is that most positions in table bases have multiple best moves. The second element is the reasonable assertion that strong players play moves which substantially more likely to be good in the precise sense than bad (i.e. their play doesn't amount entirely to unsound traps that pay off!). Given a reasonable estimate of the number of good moves and the strength of the preference for strong players for genuinely good moves, the best judgment would be that they play a lot of them.
All that analysis involves only looking at imperfect games. Therefore it concerns imperfect games only.
Perfect games from start to finish may turn many ‘good’ moves into blunders. This is the main point in this discussion. What is now seen as a ‘strong’ move because it doesn’t change the theoretical result of the game may turn out to be just a blunder, for an engine that could see the entire tree of moves.
There are blunders and then there are blunders, and now...there are blunders!
A blunder committed by a rookie may be different from one commited by a GM, but if the result changes dramatically after a forced refutation, they both deserve a ‘ ?? ‘ evaluation.
The rookie’s blunder involved a miscalculation of one or two moves, while the GM’s involved a miscalculation at move 10.
By the same token, a future engine could prove a blunder by simply going deeper and looking at branches of the tree not picked up by actual engines, for their horizon is rather tiny in comparison with one which can see absolutely all the branches.
Mar 25, 2018
0
#4011
troy7915 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:
Many moves of strong engines are perfect.
A wild speculation. It is meaningless to play a perfect move on your 25th move, if you already played 24 imperfect moves.
After playing one imperfect move, the notion of perfect loses its meaning. Strong engines may play strong moves, maybe even perfect, but nobody knows they don’t commit blunders galore where we see ‘perfect’... We can speculate but we don’t know. Only a supercomputer would know, which was the whole point here.
There is a fairly strong argument that many (probably most) moves of strong players are perfect in the precise sense of not changing the theoretical result.
The first element of the argument is that most positions in table bases have multiple best moves. The second element is the reasonable assertion that strong players play moves which substantially more likely to be good in the precise sense than bad (i.e. their play doesn't amount entirely to unsound traps that pay off!). Given a reasonable estimate of the number of good moves and the strength of the preference for strong players for genuinely good moves, the best judgment would be that they play a lot of them.
All that analysis involves only looking at imperfect games. Therefore it concerns imperfect games only.
No, it includes facts about tablebases and the moves that strong players and engines play in positions where tablebase information exists but they do not have it. In these positions, the extremely reasonable hypothesis that strong players have a strong tendency to avoid blunders is confirmed. This doesn't mean they are perfect but more like in positions where a quarter of the moves are correct, a strong player might play one of them 90% of the time (sorry guesstimate state - I am not aware of anyone studying this more thoroughly than my random explorations a while back). Someone might argue that that is just for positions with small numbers of pieces, but what matters more is not being able to get close to full analysis.
Perfect games from start to finish may turn many ‘good’ moves into blunders.
There is a subtle point here. Take Carlsen. It may be that Carlsen blunders less than once a game on average in an absolute sense (a reasonable possibility - obviously I can't prove it). But how could this be if he is not close to chess perfection (I believe he is several hundred points weaker than the strongest engine)? The reason is that his opposition is not much stronger than him, so does not pose as hard problems as the very strongest would.
If it is true that he makes few blunders in his actual games, this would imply that posing problems has a large effect on chess results as well as avoiding blunders in the absolute sense. Actually, we can be quite sure about this by looking at the range of scores in different opening positions. These stats show unquestionably that the expected score depends on more than just the theoretical results, simply because the data would be extremely unlikely if there were only 3 possible values of expected score, and every position fell into one of them. Far more likely that there is a continuum of difficulty most of which is due to variation between theoretical values.
This is the main point in this discussion. What is now seen as a ‘strong’ move because it doesn’t change the theoretical result of the game may turn out to be just a blunder, for an engine that could see the entire tree of moves.
There are blunders and then there are blunders, and now...there are blunders!
Not in an absolute sense (like in a tablebase). It is better to think of the notion of theoretical value and difficulty separately. We can't be sure what moves are blunders (though often we have a good idea) but we can be precise about a definition.
A blunder committed by a rookie may be different from one commited by a GM, but if the result changes dramatically after a forced refutation, they both deserve a ‘ ?? ‘ evaluation.
The rookie’s blunder involved a miscalculation of one or two moves, while the GM’s involved a miscalculation at move 10.
This is a practical point, but not so important to theoretical considerations. If you walk into a mate in N, it doesn't matter what N is as long as your opponent can find the mate.
By the same token, a future engine could prove a blunder by simply going deeper and looking at branches of the tree not picked up by actual engines, for their horizon is rather tiny in comparison with one which can see absolutely all the branches.
For sure, better analysis gives more precise assessments, but it needs to be absolutely thorough to be sure of the value (i.e. so that conditional moves which lead to a win could be provided).
troy7915 wrote: ponz in red
Elroch wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:
Many moves of strong engines are perfect.
A wild speculation. It is meaningless to play a perfect move on your 25th move, if you already played 24 imperfect moves.
After playing one imperfect move, the notion of perfect loses its meaning. Strong engines may play strong moves, maybe even perfect, but nobody knows they don’t commit blunders galore where we see ‘perfect’... We can speculate but we don’t know. Only a supercomputer would know, which was the whole point here.
There is a fairly strong argument that many (probably most) moves of strong players are perfect in the precise sense of not changing the theoretical result.
The first element of the argument is that most positions in table bases have multiple best moves. The second element is the reasonable assertion that strong players play moves which substantially more likely to be good in the precise sense than bad (i.e. their play doesn't amount entirely to unsound traps that pay off!). Given a reasonable estimate of the number of good moves and the strength of the preference for strong players for genuinely good moves, the best judgment would be that they play a lot of them.
All that analysis involves only looking at imperfect games. Therefore it concerns imperfect games only. This is a "strawman argument" He said nothing about looking at imperfect games.
Perfect games from start to finish may turn many ‘good’ moves into blunders.This sentence makes no sense. By definition perfect games do not turn good moves into blunders. Perfect games remain perfect games all through the course of the game.
This is the main point in this discussion. What is now seen as a ‘strong’ move because it doesn’t change the theoretical result of the game may turn out to be just a blunder, for an engine that could see the entire tree of moves. What you are saying here is that the analysis of a strong move could be wrong. Nobody is disputing this.
There are blunders and then there are blunders, and now...there are blunders! Several definitions of "blunders". One definition would be that a blunder in chess is a move which would change the theoretical result.
A blunder committed by a rookie may be different from one commited by a GM, but if the result changes dramatically after a forced refutation, they both deserve a ‘ ?? ‘ evaluation. So what point are you trying to make? That anyone can blunder?
The rookie’s blunder involved a miscalculation of one or two moves, while the GM’s involved a miscalculation at move 10. Not necessarily. A blunder can come any time during a game.
By the same token, a future engine could prove a blunder by simply going deeper and looking at branches of the tree not picked up by actual engines, for their horizon is rather tiny in comparison with one which can see absolutely all the branches .For a future engine to see absolutely all the branches--it would have to be able to solve chess and that ain't gonna happen anytime soon. [My guess is that it will not happen before out sun expands and takes out all life on earth]
All you seem to be saying is that humans and chess engines can blunder. Most everybody knows this. It is possible, sometime in the future, that a chess engine will be invented that never blunders even if chess itself is not solved.
But as for now, there have been many chess games played where neither side made a mistake [or a blunder]
To 5286: Someone earlier gave some proof of Kasparov admitting he does not know what is the outcome of a perfect game. Not a shocker, since nobody knows that.
But let us not confuse that with how we are playing the game. That is a different matter altogether. When playing the game we do need some blueprint about how to get out of the darkness.
But we’re not talking from the vantage point of playing the game. We are only talking logically about the outcome of a perfect game. After all, the blueprint we use in playing the game, which includes beliefs, may prove entirely wrong.
But regardless, once we started out a game, we must finish it one way or another, and at the moment this is not possible without harboring some type of belief or another.
The whole trick is to realize they are beliefs, not facts, and that they may turn out to be false.
troy7915 wrote: ponz in blue
ponz111 wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
troy it is a logical fallacy to consider the game of chess could end in a draw or in a loss or in a win and that means that since there are 3 possibilities that means each possibility has a 33% chance of happening...Ludic logical fallacy
It could be one of three options. So the chances you are correct by picking any one of them are 33.33%. If there were more options to choose from, the percentage being much smaller, the impulse to speculate would be even more futile.
But one chance in three to be right? Speculate if you feel you must: just don’t pretend it’s not a speculation, ultimately.
After all, 33% or 99% —same difference: they’re both not a fact.
Of course, your coming up with the actual number of 99% has no mathematical basis, whereas 33% has.
I will give an anology. Here are 3 possibilities concerning where my dog sleeps. 90% of the time he sleeps on our bed. 6% of the time he sleeps on the floor. 4% of the time he sleeps under our bed.
Do you really think if we do not know where he is sleeping now--that each of the 3 possibilities is equally likely?
Guessing the outcome of a perfect game by looking at the outcome of imperfect games is flawed. There are many pieces of evidence regarding the outcome of perfect games and looking at imperfect games is only one piece of evidence. We increase our knowledge of chess by watching and analyzing imperfect games.
No one knows anything about a perfect game. Speak for yourself! You do not speak for everyone. Lots of people know something about a perfect game. I know several things about a perfect game.
That’s why I gave it a one-in-three shot. It’s purely random. You math is wrong. Hopefully someone other than me can show you this!?
Elroch wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:
Many moves of strong engines are perfect.
A wild speculation. It is meaningless to play a perfect move on your 25th move, if you already played 24 imperfect moves.
After playing one imperfect move, the notion of perfect loses its meaning. Strong engines may play strong moves, maybe even perfect, but nobody knows they don’t commit blunders galore where we see ‘perfect’... We can speculate but we don’t know. Only a supercomputer would know, which was the whole point here.
There is a fairly strong argument that many (probably most) moves of strong players are perfect in the precise sense of not changing the theoretical result.
The first element of the argument is that most positions in table bases have multiple best moves. The second element is the reasonable assertion that strong players play moves which substantially more likely to be good in the precise sense than bad (i.e. their play doesn't amount entirely to unsound traps that pay off!). Given a reasonable estimate of the number of good moves and the strength of the preference for strong players for genuinely good moves, the best judgment would be that they play a lot of them.
All that analysis involves only looking at imperfect games. Therefore it concerns imperfect games only.
No, it includes facts about tablebases and the moves that strong players and engines play in positions where tablebase information exists but they do not have it. In these positions, the extremely reasonable hypothesis that strong players have a strong tendency to avoid blunders is confirmed. This doesn't mean they are perfect but more like in positions where a quarter of the moves are correct, a strong player might play one of them 90% of the time (sorry guesstimate state - I am not aware of anyone studying this more thoroughly than my random explorations a while back). Someone might argue that that is just for positions with small numbers of pieces, but what matters more is not being able to get close to full analysis.
Perfect games from start to finish may turn many ‘good’ moves into blunders.
There is a subtle point here. Take Carlsen. It may be that Carlsen blunders less than once a game on average in an absolute sense (a reasonable possibility - obviously I can't prove it). But how could this be if he is not close to chess perfection (I believe he is several hundred points weaker than the strongest engine)? The reason is that his opposition is not much stronger than him, so does not pose as hard problems as the very strongest would.
If it is true that he makes few blunders in his actual games, this would imply that posing problems has a large effect on chess results as well as avoiding blunders in the absolute sense. Actually, we can be quite sure about this by looking at the range of scores in different opening positions. These stats show unquestionably that the expected score depends on more than just the theoretical results, simply because the data would be extremely unlikely if there were only 3 possible values of expected score, and every position fell into one of them. Far more likely that there is a continuum of difficulty most of which is due to variation between theoretical values.
This is the main point in this discussion. What is now seen as a ‘strong’ move because it doesn’t change the theoretical result of the game may turn out to be just a blunder, for an engine that could see the entire tree of moves.
There are blunders and then there are blunders, and now...there are blunders!
Not in an absolute sense (like in a tablebase). It is better to think of the notion of theoretical value and difficulty separately. We can't be sure what moves are blunders (though often we have a good idea) but we can be precise about a definition.
A blunder committed by a rookie may be different from one commited by a GM, but if the result changes dramatically after a forced refutation, they both deserve a ‘ ?? ‘ evaluation.
The rookie’s blunder involved a miscalculation of one or two moves, while the GM’s involved a miscalculation at move 10.
This is a practical point, but not so important to theoretical considerations. If you walk into a mate in N, it doesn't matter what N is as long as your opponent can find the mate.
By the same token, a future engine could prove a blunder by simply going deeper and looking at branches of the tree not picked up by actual engines, for their horizon is rather tiny in comparison with one which can see absolutely all the branches.
For sure, better analysis gives more precise assessments, but it needs to be absolutely thorough to be sure of the value (i.e. so that conditional moves which lead to a win could be provided).
That was the point: ‘ absolutely thorough ‘. Without an engine that sees the whole tree, any present analysis is incomplete and could be very misleading.
I wasn’t just talking of a forced mating net. It could be that an all-seeing engine comes up a piece after a long sequence of best moves. What caused it is still a blunder, even though a present-day engine cannot see it.
As for Carlsen, how can anyone say that he makes ‘one blunder per game’ ? How would anyone know about a blunder of the latter case, since that can only be spotted by a significantly stronger engine, that may never be built? Until then, we cannot be sure he didn’t blunder on the first or second move...Only three people here understand this simple fact, for some reason...
ponz111 wrote:
troy7915 wrote: ponz in blue
ponz111 wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
troy it is a logical fallacy to consider the game of chess could end in a draw or in a loss or in a win and that means that since there are 3 possibilities that means each possibility has a 33% chance of happening...Ludic logical fallacy
It could be one of three options. So the chances you are correct by picking any one of them are 33.33%. If there were more options to choose from, the percentage being much smaller, the impulse to speculate would be even more futile.
But one chance in three to be right? Speculate if you feel you must: just don’t pretend it’s not a speculation, ultimately.
After all, 33% or 99% —same difference: they’re both not a fact.
Of course, your coming up with the actual number of 99% has no mathematical basis, whereas 33% has.
I will give an anology. Here are 3 possibilities concerning where my dog sleeps. 90% of the time he sleeps on our bed. 6% of the time he sleeps on the floor. 4% of the time he sleeps under our bed.
Do you really think if we do not know where he is sleeping now--that each of the 3 possibilities is equally likely?
Guessing the outcome of a perfect game by looking at the outcome of imperfect games is flawed. There are many pieces of evidence regarding the outcome of perfect games and looking at imperfect games is only one piece of evidence. We increase our knowledge of chess by watching and analyzing imperfect games.
No one knows anything about a perfect game. Speak for yourself! You do not speak for everyone. Lots of people know something about a perfect game. I know several things about a perfect game.
That’s why I gave it a one-in-three shot. It’s purely random. You math is wrong. Hopefully someone other than me can show you this!?
It is precisely because it is random, that the odds of one in three are correct.
You can look at all the games that have been played, and still not being able to say that the Ruy Lopez doesn’t loses by force, as a fact, with absolute certainty, with best moves on both sides.
ponz111 wrote:
troy7915 wrote: ponz in red
Elroch wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:
Many moves of strong engines are perfect.
A wild speculation. It is meaningless to play a perfect move on your 25th move, if you already played 24 imperfect moves.
After playing one imperfect move, the notion of perfect loses its meaning. Strong engines may play strong moves, maybe even perfect, but nobody knows they don’t commit blunders galore where we see ‘perfect’... We can speculate but we don’t know. Only a supercomputer would know, which was the whole point here.
There is a fairly strong argument that many (probably most) moves of strong players are perfect in the precise sense of not changing the theoretical result.
The first element of the argument is that most positions in table bases have multiple best moves. The second element is the reasonable assertion that strong players play moves which substantially more likely to be good in the precise sense than bad (i.e. their play doesn't amount entirely to unsound traps that pay off!). Given a reasonable estimate of the number of good moves and the strength of the preference for strong players for genuinely good moves, the best judgment would be that they play a lot of them.
All that analysis involves only looking at imperfect games. Therefore it concerns imperfect games only. This is a "strawman argument" He said nothing about looking at imperfect games.
Actually he did. Talking about Carlsen’s games is a look at imperfect games and drawing conclusions from them.
Perfect games from start to finish may turn many ‘good’ moves into blunders.This sentence makes no sense. By definition perfect games do not turn good moves into blunders. Perfect games remain perfect games all through the course of the game.
I meant a perfect game may turn many ‘good’ moves ( of imperfect moves) into blunders.
This is the main point in this discussion. What is now seen as a ‘strong’ move because it doesn’t change the theoretical result of the game may turn out to be just a blunder, for an engine that could see the entire tree of moves. What you are saying here is that the analysis of a strong move could be wrong. Nobody is disputing this.
No, it’s the same point as above: many ‘strong’ moves can turn out to be blunders, thus making our ‘knowledge of chess’ rather meaningless.
The rookie’s blunder involved a miscalculation of one or two moves, while the GM’s involved a miscalculation at move 10. Not necessarily. A blunder can come any time during a game.
You misunderstood: a rookie’s blunder involves an error after looking 1 move into the future, whereas a GM’s blunder involves an error after looking 10 moves into the future. In the same way, present engines’ blunders may involve errors after looking 30 moves into the future.
[My guess is that it will not happen before out sun expands and takes out all life on earth]
That does not magically transform an opinion into a fact. If we will never know, then so be it, we will never know. Not knowing remains not knowing, and one’s opinion will always be an opinion. The fact of it will never known. So be it.
It is possible, sometime in the future, that a chess engine will be invented that never blunders even if chess itself is not solved.
But as for now, there have been many chess games played where neither side made a mistake [or a blunder]
Not a fact.
Mar 25, 2018
0
#4018
That tablebases show strong players play perfect moves more often is unsurprising. It’s what you would expect. But you cannot extrapolate the RATE at which they find them on vastly simplified positions to the rate it is from the starting position.
Heck, even some of the simplified positions. Godsofhell showed a 7 piece table base that was Mate in 549! What is the statistical likelihood any two players would play every single move perfectly (one forces mate, the other delays mate as long as possible)?
With each additional piece added the complexity of solving the position goes up exponentially. At the starting position there are more game variations than atoms in the universe!
And EVEN IF a perfect game was ever played (none of us knows), the game could start with Black in a mating net.
- That perfect chess is a draw is a reasonable guess.
- Claiming to KNOW chess is a draw is not reasonable.
- Claiming to KNOW thousands of perfect games have been played is not reasonable.
- Claiming to KNOW you personally have played several perfect games is not reasonable.
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
- That perfect chess is a draw is a reasonable guess.
- Claiming to KNOW chess is a draw is not reasonable.
- Claiming to KNOW thousands of perfect games have been played is not reasonable.
- Claiming to KNOW you personally have played several perfect games is not reasonable.
Bingo! Although I’d go further and say not only that it’s not reasonable, but it’s actually false.
USArmyParatrooper wrote: ponz in blue
That tablebases find strong players play perfect moves more often is unsurprising. It’s what you would expect. But you cannot extrapolate the RATE at which they find them on vastly simplified positions to the rate it is from the starting position. One could guess from other factors however.
Heck, even some of the simplified positions. Godsofhell showed a 7 piece table base that was Mate in 549! What is the statistical likelihood any two players would play every single move perfectly (white forces mate, black delays mate as long as possible)? How two human players might play a very hard particular position has no bearing on the question of playing perfect moves.
With each additional piece added the complexity of solving the position goes up exponentially. At the starting position there are more game variations than atoms in the universe! This is true. But what point are you trying to make?
And EVEN IF a perfect game was ever played (none of us knows), Speak for yourself, i know.
the game could start with Black in a mating net. And the earth could explode next Friday and wipe out all life...what is your point?
- That perfect chess is a draw is a reasonable guess. this is true By the way, you are making a claim that it is a reasonable guess!
- Claiming to KNOW chess is a draw is not reasonable.Sure it is reasonable IF we have a lot of evidence that it is true. We claim to know many things. But really our claims are based on evidence. Usually our claims are true but sometimes our claims might not be true. But as long as we have good evidence [and this can be circumstantial evidence] for a claim--we are making a reasonable claim.
- Claiming to KNOW thousands of perfect games have been played is not reasonable. Again, when we claim something--it should be based on evidence. If we have good evidence for a claim--then it is reasonable to have that claim.
- Claiming to KNOW you personally have played several perfect games is not reasonable. Again my claim to have personally played several perfect games is reasonable as i have good evidence to support my claim.
@godsofhell1235. that's a nice diagram! I'm a big fan of diagrams in math. The relative size of things like an eye and the sun is cool too when displayed in an illustration or diagram. I posted this several pages ago, but showing again!