Will computers ever solve chess? - Chess Forums - Page 204

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

USArmyParatrooper

Mar 26, 2018

0

#4061

troy7915 wrote:

Ponz’s asking USArmy: Are you assuming that those moves ( 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 ) change the theoretical result?

Now he needs to ask himself: Are you assuming that it doesn’t?

I didn’t even notice he asked me that question. It goes to the core of the problem here, and that is his comprehension problem.

I am assuming absolutely nothing. I am asserting the results of perfect chess remain unproven, and nobody can possibly identify a perfect game if it ever happened.

zborg

Mar 26, 2018

0

#4062

godsofhell1235 wrote:

zborg wrote:

USArmyParatrooper wrote:

zborg wrote:

In our gut, "we know it's a draw" because there are billions of games where one side has a (equivalent) advantage of 3 pawns (equal to a full minor piece) but that side still cannot deliver a forced mate.

The idea of "Best Play By Both Sides" is just frosting on this cake.

Speculate... open question... has not been proven... in our gut...

All contradict with KNOW....

Would you like to pick a position?

Yes, -- consider that you are mistaken, and suffer from tunnel vision, which makes effectively communication well nigh impossible. Try this book on for size -- Wayne Booth, (2004)...

https://www.amazon.com/Rhetoric-RHETORIC-Quest-Effective-Communication/dp/1405112379

You'll be a better man for it, and capable of listening too.

Best play, and perfect play are Ponz111's ideas. These ideas are well described (by Elroch above), but I never signed up to that frosting on the cake. My proposition was a much weaker one -- even with the advantage of a minor piece, a forced mate cannot be delivered in billions of positions. Hence the presumption of a draw, until shown otherwise.

That proposition is both simple and pragmatic -- without the need to breath the same Olympian air as the Gods of Logic to which you keep aspiring, and baldly asserting.

I have an opinion on this though... which is the main function of extra material is not to give mate. It's to win more material.

For example if I have 3 attackers, and you have two defenders, then I can win an additional something.

Only later does that give mate.

So while in certain endings it may be true you can surrive down a lot of material, I think it's ridiculous to claim the same for the openings.

... I say this even though I use a similar argument re: the drawing margine of endgames... but it's true in all phases that a whole pawn extra is often enough easily compensated for... a minor piece though? No way!

Everyone -- Please consider NOT reading all the blather above, including what I wrote as well.

I baldly assert that 1) GodsofHell is onto something. A certain amout of material advantage gives a strong presumption of a win that CAN BE FORCED.

2) On balance 1-1/2 pawns is typically considered a WINNING ADVANTAGE.

3) If you can't keep at least one pawn on the board and eventually promote it, you will NOT likely force a win.

4) when all the pawns are removed (via exchanges, et. al.) even a 3 point advantage (without pawns still on the board) will NOT allow a forced win, (in billions of endgames). The defender will simply "fort up."

My final bald assertation is -- 5) GodsofHell's blitz record is so totally lopsided (he joined in March 2018, and has 25 wins and only 3 losses, Games in 3/0, against 1900 strength opponents), there is suspicion of engine use here.

Perhaps GodsofHelll is trolling this thoroughly circular thread, all the while using an engine -- so the joke's on us, fellow chessnuts. HA!!

zborg

Mar 26, 2018

0

#4063

Oh my God, this is truly hilarious -- GodsofHell rose from 1000 Blitz rating to about 1900 rating, in just one day on the site, February 9th. Since then, he has not played, to date. Please tell us his coach, and we should all hire that person! LOL.

More power to you, GodsofHell, and enjoy the continuing mayhem.

USArmyParatrooper

Mar 26, 2018

0

#4064

zborg wrote:

Oh my God, this is truly hilarious -- GodsofHell rose from 1000 Blitz rating to about 1900 rating, in just one day on the site, February 9th. Since then, he has not played, to date. Please tell us his coach, and we should all hire that person! LOL.

More power to you, GodsofHell, and enjoy the continuing mayhem.

I can only attest by his excellent contributions to my “chest tips“ forum, he is WAAAAAYYYY above a 1000 level player.

AnonymousUser9401

Mar 26, 2018

0

#4065

troy7915 wrote:

ponz111 wrote:

troy7915 wrote: ponz in blue

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. You used the word "only" in the above sentence you are not using the word "only" This changes everything and it remains true you were using "strawman"

Your memory is retarded, sir: you said ‘he said NOTHING about looking at imperfect games’. Now you are switching it and abandoning that refuted claim and hang on to something else.

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 also does not make sense? What is a good move of imperfect moves?

‘Imperfect games’ was meant ( the computer has an interpretation of its own). You are intentionally playing stupid so you can avoid facing the refutation. Dishonest again.

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. Because we do not play perfectly and because sometimes we may not analyze perfectly --all of this does not make our knowledge of chess rather meaningless. You are way out in left field on this one. Few chess players either good or bad or inbetween would agree with your opinion that our knowledge of chess is rather meaningless.

I know you wish to dismiss chess knowledge in order to help make your arguments but this just makes your arguments look worse.

The playing strength plays no role in this. We are not talking about a practical point of view that helps one play better chess. FAR FROM IT. It may help one play better chess, until it’s proven that they were making blunders left and right.

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.This also is not usually the case. A rookie can make a mistake by looking 1 move into the future but sometimes a rookie makes mistakes by looking 2 moves in the future. Also a GM can look 1 move in the future and make a mistake.

I was giving you an example, so you can see how an engine that can see the whole tree can turn what you call strong or ‘perfect’ into a blunder. Usually EXCEPTIONS NOT INCLUDED, a rookie’s blunder is far more simplistic than a GM’s blunder, hence the difference in playing strength. USUALLY, the GM’s don’t hang pieces—ocassionally they do, BUT USUALLY THEY DON’T. As usual, your are so dishonest and get into retarded, meaningless details, while avoiding tackling the main point. Fake to the bone.

[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.A fact is a fact even if we do not know it. It is a fact that there are other galaxies which exist other than our own galaxy. However this fact was not known in 1940. An opinion can also be a fact in that all facts are opinions.

Obviously not. You are confused to the bone again: the fact that an all-seeing engine can prove is not an opinion. Your guess is.

The former will be an absolute fact. Yours is a relative opinion. That opinion is also a fact, existing in your brain, the product of knowledge and imagination. But the two facts are separate. What an all-seeing engine can reveal is not a product of its imagination.

Just because it’s nearly impossible to build one doesn’t connect the fact of your opinion as the product of your imagination with the fact in itself, which you and I will probably never know.

Your guess is still the relative product of your imagination, still not an absolute fact which is not a guess.

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. It is a fact. Just because you do not know something does not make it "not a fact"

I could say there are at least 5 planets revolvling around a certain distant star. You may say "Not a fact." But this does not mean that it is not a fact.

Utterly confused again. It is not a fact to you, slow poke, TO YOU. TO YOU, one slow poke, TO YOU it is not a fact. I keep making this distinction...

TO YOU IT’S A GUESS.

Listen slow poke, you can see a fact for what it is, a fact; or you may not see a fact—even though it’s a fact you don’t see it—and instead guess about it.

Even when your guess is correct you did not see the fact, you just guessed: correct or not, IT’S STILL A GUESS. That means YOU DID NOT SEE THE FACT JUST BECAUSE YOU GUESSED CORRECTLY—it’s still a guess.

And another fact is, nobody knows you guessed correctly. But even in that happy situation YOU JUST GUESSED, you didn’t see the fact.

zborg

Mar 26, 2018

0

#4066

USArmyParatrooper wrote:

zborg wrote:

Oh my God, this is truly hilarious -- GodsofHell rose from 1000 Blitz rating to about 1900 rating, in just one day on the site, February 9th. Since then, he has not played, to date. Please tell us his coach, and we should all hire that person! LOL.

More power to you, GodsofHell, and enjoy the continuing mayhem.

I can only attest by his excellent contributions to my “chest tips“ forum, he is WAAAAAYYYY above a 1000 level player.

The joke is on you, Sean.

If he tries to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn, hold onto your money, please.

The trolls glam onto this thread like bees to honey. Buyer Beware.

DiogenesDue

Mar 26, 2018

0

#4067

Smositional wrote:

if (@btickler) {

System.out.println("Computer will solve chess! HAAHAHAHAAHA")

}

Java? Hello 1990s...the last Java system I designed was in 1998. Good times. Do you enjoy using the COBOL of the new millennium?

That was 20 years ago...so about the amount of time Vickalan thinks technology can advance far enough to solve chess, but we haven't even dumped Java yet.

vickalan

Mar 26, 2018

0

#4068

btickler wrote:

That was 20 years ago...so about the amount of time Vickalan thinks technology can advance far enough to solve chess...

What number of mathematical operations to solve chess did you use to conclude that it can't be done in 20 years? Let's see if you can use some math, and not resort to insults and hyperbole.

zborg

Mar 26, 2018

0

#4069

Anything that can be imagined (no matter how bizarre) can be posted to an internet forum. People who both use and (actually) cite Wiki, have both their heads and their chess pieces, up their arses, -- a la Freshman Logic 101, which (apparently) turns every logician into a Superman. Neat trick.

Sorry to Inform.

godsofhell1235

Mar 26, 2018

0

#4070

zborg wrote:

Oh my God, this is truly hilarious -- GodsofHell rose from 1000 Blitz rating to about 1900 rating, in just one day on the site, February 9th. Since then, he has not played, to date. Please tell us his coach, and we should all hire that person! LOL.

More power to you, GodsofHell, and enjoy the continuing mayhem.

I got this rating after 8 oz of 100 proof.

Otherwise it would be a lot higher. I've been 2100 blitz here.

This is my usual pattern.

Likely, at least in part, due to weak psychology. I don't like to lose, so I play weak players (I started this account's rating low on purpose, these days they let you pick by the way), and I play while intoxicated so I have ample excuses.

After I start getting sober I stop, and since my rating is close to its max I switch to anonymous chess on other sites.

---

Give me a game to analyze, or check out my many posts here, where I've given by now probably a dozen different tips
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/share-a-chess-tip

It's pretty obvious I don't use an engine to give this sort of analysis, and I very much like human logic based explanation.

godsofhell1235

Mar 26, 2018

0

#4071

Oh, and if all else fails, just use an engine to look at my games.

I remember one 1900 I beat after blundering my queen

My games are not pretty.

godsofhell1235

Mar 26, 2018

0

#4072

godsofhell1235

Mar 26, 2018

0

#4073

In the middle of blitzing out theory, this guy makes a mouse slip.

He tells me in chat and asks for a draw.

I accept the draw request (even though if he'd actually taken the knight on move 7, this line isn't particularly good for white. Black most often gets to 0-0-0 and eventually collects the pawn on g7)

zborg

Mar 26, 2018

0

#4074

Methinks the gentleman (GodsofHell) doth protest (much) too strongly.

Instead of digging that hole even deeper, perhaps you should stop?

Have a Great Day, or (perhaps) another 8 oz. of 100 proof?

Your authored threads are mostly trolling for dimwit followers. Give it up man.

godsofhell1235

Mar 26, 2018

0

#4075

Hey, you gave me a chance to brag (such that it is) and I jumped on it. Maybe too strongly... but maybe I'm just that pathetic lol.

Digging myself into a hole? Please, accuse me more. Report me. Let me defend myself loudly and often while you let everyone know just how amazing you think I really am

Elroch

Mar 26, 2018

0

#4076

godsofhell1235 wrote:

Oh, and if all else fails, just use an engine to look at my games.

I remember one 1900 I beat after blundering my queen

My games are not pretty.

I drew this one, but how about this for an example of top 1% rapid chess. After I goofed, I just pretended I wasn't dead lost for half the game.

zborg

Mar 26, 2018

0

#4077

No thanks. Simply enjoy the site. It's "free," in a manner of speaking.

AblazePopRocket

Mar 26, 2018

0

#4078

ptd570 wrote:

Its intriguing to me to know whether or not it will be done with our intellect and our manmade software...I'm sure there is a solution to solve it, but will us humans be able to do. Doesnt that intrigue you CP6033 or is it totaly uninteresting because we will be dead and gone then. With that type of philosiphy why should we explore space or why should we try to conserve or avoid polluting etc.etc...we wont be around to bear the consiquences. I guess that is the mentality that will ultimately put our species to sleep for good, the who cares we wont be alive then attitude.

I wonder about these inevatabilities my friend

Wow, great wisdom, good sir. I completely agree with you. We should work together to save the world and consider the consequences of our actions in the future. We should also take responsibility to clean up and restore all the things we humans have done to ruin our only home and creation in which other animals live on. Us humans are so selfish. It's ridiculous to think about.

zborg

Mar 26, 2018

0

#4079

And here's a practical issue for everyone to discuss -- these two guys (compare game below) are roughly IM/GM level. They are playing Game in 3/0. Their 40 moves, before one side resigns, are super sharp. Then one guy resigns within a few seconds before he's (apparently) on the receiving end of a forced mate.

https://www.chess.com/live#g=2703677471

In the (above) 40-move game, somebody MUST have made a mistake! Otherwise (according to Ponz111) the game would surely end in a draw.

That's a proposition this thread should consider. Check out the game. Somebody post it. Maybe analyse it DEEPLY. And save everyone the BS blather that has dominated this thread to date.

It's a "simple game" French Defense (being used as an example), with the simple proposition above. A discussion will (necessarily) be a practical discussion, NOT more BS about quantum computers, in the future, or in the Matrix movie.

Unless of course, that's all you guys really want to talk about in this crazy-arse thread ??

godsofhell1235

Mar 26, 2018

0

#4080

Elroch wrote:

godsofhell1235 wrote:

Oh, and if all else fails, just use an engine to look at my games.

I remember one 1900 I beat after blundering my queen

My games are not pretty.

I drew this one, but how about this for an example of top 1% rapid chess. After I goofed, I just pretended I wasn't dead lost for half the game.

It's fun and easy to mock blitz games for their mistakes.

But after blundering you still made moves to make things difficult for your opponent. Engines (and weak players) don't do that. So sure, hahaha, top 1% sometimes plays garbage blitz games, but still, you can see their class.

IMO my moves 36-39 are like that. I sac just to get rid of an active piece, try to make white pay attention to his g1 rook, then ignore the rook to (re)post my knight on d4.

I got the same feeling for your moves 26-30. You "sac" the queen (you were going to lose about that much material anyway, might as well get rid of an active opponent's piece) then post your knight to d4 and ask white how he plans to win in the remaining time.