Chess players rated over 2500 are very rare. If someone has the ability to play at such a level, of course they don't have to prove it. But because such ability is so rare, it's very very common for such a player to have a title of some kind. No one has to prove anything, but common sense tells us those who possess this rare ability dont just toss it aside. They almost universally seek out recognition by obtaining a title. If someone does not have that title, it's a safe bet they do not have the ability either.
Will computers ever solve chess?
Sort:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Chess players rated over 2500 are very rare. If someone has the ability to play at such a level, of course they don't have to prove it. But because such ability is so rare, it's very very common for such a player to have a title of some kind. No one has to prove anything, but common sense tells us those who possess this rare ability dont just toss it aside. They almost universally seek out recognition by obtaining a title. If someone does not have that title, it's a safe bet they do not have the ability either.
I agree, Patriot. Oh yeah, I forgot. He has an excuse for not having a title too. lol
Actually i have a title it is the 7th USA Correspondence Chess Champion and you can look it up if you wish. Along with my winning score and my games played.
Way back in 1973 i played at the USCF performance rate of 2437 for all of my games that year. Due to very bad luck my last 8 games were not rated and thus i ended with only a 2188 rating. At that point i decided to go for correspondence chess rather than over the board chess and my abilities rose to above the 2550 level.
Believe it or not it is the truth and those who do not believe it--that is their problem.
[by the way type "chess david taylor" on your search engine...]
Jeff, Ponz is a legit correspondence player. There are plenty of posers out there, but Ponz has earned some respect. He's no longer as sharp as he was when he won the correspondence title, but he does know a thing or two about the game. He's even written a book on his favorite opening.
Choose your targets wisely.
Got my other computer fixed. So am able to supply photo of me and the Championship torphy. The picture is entitled: "I can't believe I won a chess tournament!! [actually have won dozens]
Alright, I'll let it go. A picture is worth 1000 words. 
I believe that's him holding the trophy.
JeffGreen333 wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
Jeff if you are not a doorman--so it it totally irresponsible of you to accuse someone on chess.com of not being who he states he is--unless you have sufficient proof for your negative and disparaging claim.
You do not have such proof--so your disparaging claim [s] are totally irresponsible.
And I can say that it is totally irresponsible of you to claim to be a 2500/2600 player, when you have no proof, no title and low ratings, in the 1200-1700 range, on here.
To say this was a superficial statement would be generous. Ponz has only played one daily game on chess.com, and five bullet games (all wins).
I have known him for a long time and have no doubt he is a world class correspondence chess player, as he indicates. He still leads vote chess with great results (I have a little experience of being on the wrong side of them).
Also, you have lame excuses for why your ratings are so low
Seriously? The simple observations above leave nothing needing an "excuse".
and why you can't post a photo of you and your trophy/plaque. If this were a court case, the prosecution rests and the jury would be convicting you right about now. The burden is therefore on you to prove that you are who you say you are. All of the evidence is stacked against you, my friend. Put up or shut up. Case closed.
Oops. You're going down, mate.
JeffGreen333 wrote:
Alright, I'll let it go. A picture is worth 1000 words. I believe that's him holding the trophy.
If you still doubt his credentials, go to USCF and look him up. He's given you enough information to do that, and to see that he matches the player described there. Anyone can take a photo from the internet. But everything matches what he says.
He's been acquitted. lol
i only say things which are true on these forums. Sometimes someone or people do not believe what i say is true and maybe Jeff will bite?
In the last 2 months i have won more than a dozen tournaments. These ranged from 15 to 56 players 
0
#1312
JeffGreen333 wrote:
Another strong indication that the "solution to chess" is a draw is the results of the Computer World Chess Championships. These computers are all rated over 3000 and about 80% of the games were draws.
The most recent results have shifted a lot for the most advanced engines. Draws are now only 35% of games. Distributed computing is now being used, and more than 15,000,000 games have been played this way (cpu vs. cpu). Check this link for the latest,
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/users/monthly
anyone can join to add your own "spare" cpu time to this study. It appear the solution to chess may still go either way, and even a win for black has not been ruled out.👽👀👻
mayapira wrote:
JeffGreen333 wrote:
Another strong indication that the "solution to chess" is a draw is the results of the Computer World Chess Championships. These computers are all rated over 3000 and about 80% of the games were draws.
The most recent results have shifted a lot for the most advanced engines. Draws are now only 35% of games. Distributed computing is now being used, and more than 15,000,000 games have been played this way (cpu vs. cpu). Check this link for the latest,
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/users/monthly
anyone can join to add your own "spare" cpu time to this study. It appear the solution to chess may still go either way, and even a win for black has not been ruled out.👽👀👻
How to lie with facts.
Yes, the draw rate in computer vs computer matches has gone down dramatically. The reason for this is that most matches are now played at extremely fast speeds. The link you provide shows that they are playing 661 games a minute!
In the recent TCEC championships, played at slower time controls, Komodo won the title with a +7=53 -4 performance.
That is, just over 17% of the games played by Komodo in a 64 game tournament were decisive.
0
#1314
661 games per minute is because they are being played with distributed computing. People from all around the world are donating spare computer time. The games are faster time controls, but these are all "grandmaster" style or better games using the most advanced algorithms.
SmyslovFan wrote:
mayapira wrote:
JeffGreen333 wrote:
Another strong indication that the "solution to chess" is a draw is the results of the Computer World Chess Championships. These computers are all rated over 3000 and about 80% of the games were draws.
The most recent results have shifted a lot for the most advanced engines. Draws are now only 35% of games. Distributed computing is now being used, and more than 15,000,000 games have been played this way (cpu vs. cpu). Check this link for the latest,
http://tests.stockfishchess.org/users/monthly
anyone can join to add your own "spare" cpu time to this study. It appear the solution to chess may still go either way, and even a win for black has not been ruled out.👽👀👻
How to lie with facts.
Yes, the draw rate in computer vs computer matches has gone down dramatically. The reason for this is that most matches are now played at extremely fast speeds. The link you provide shows that they are playing 661 games a minute!
In the recent TCEC championships, played at slower time controls, Komodo won the title with a +7=53 -4 performance.
That is, just over 17% of the games played by Komodo in a 64 game tournament were decisive.
Which championship are you referring to? Komodo didn't even make the finals in TCEC 9, Houdini lost fairly badly to Stockfish...
http://www.chessdom.com/stockfish-is-the-tcec-season-9-grand-champion/
I'm guessing you know that I was using Season 8's stats. You probably also remember that I posted the TCEC match results for Stockfish' win several pages earlier in this thread. As I stated then, Stockfish lost 8 out of 100 games in the final in season 9, and won 54.5-45.5.
The stats are similar for both seasons. I used season 8 because it was further evidence, and because it was easy to find online.
Here's the TCEC rules for season 9:
Time control
Classical time control will be used through the season and it is increased the deeper the Season goes. For Stage 1, the time control is 120 minutes + 15 seconds added per move for the whole game. For Stage 2, the time control is 120 minutes + 15 seconds added per move for the whole game. For Stage 3, the time control is 150 minutes + 15 seconds added per move for the whole game. For the Superfinal, the time control is 180 minutes + 15 seconds added per move for the whole game. If an engine loses on time, the result will not be changed or the game replayed. If the TCEC game server locks up at any time during a game (BSOD, freeze etc), that game will be restarted unless the last position was a 6-man or less tablebase position, then it will be manually adjudicated. Prior to Season 9, different time controls have been used. Check the individual games in the "Archive page"" for info.
0
#1317
A hypothetical for the real experts.
Let us say that Black was given the right to choose just one move, the first, for White, so that White would be in the worst possible situation.
What move would he choose?
Second question.
With best play, would White be able to salvage the game for at least a draw?
In a nutshell, what is White's worst possible first move?
0
#1318
My hunch is to play 1. f3
By way of edit, my engine nominates 1. g4 as the worst move
1.f3 is White's worst move, but it doesn't lose by force.
Black's worst first move would lose a pawn by force, which is probably enough to decide the game.
1.g4 is the worst move. Both SF and Komodo agreed as -0.80+, so it is very likely that it will lead to force lose for white. Otherwise all other openings are very likely to forced draw.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/stockfish-evaluation-at-depth-50-on-all-possible-initial-opening-moves
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
Jeff if you are not a doorman--so it it totally irresponsible of you to accuse someone on chess.com of not being who he states he is--unless you have sufficient proof for your negative and disparaging claim.
You do not have such proof--so your disparaging claim [s] are totally irresponsible.
And I can say that it is totally irresponsible of you to claim to be a 2500/2600 player, when you have no proof, no title and low ratings, in the 1200-1700 range, on here. Also, you have lame excuses for why your ratings are so low and why you can't post a photo of you and your trophy/plaque. If this were a court case, the prosecution rests and the jury would be convicting you right about now. The burden is therefore on you to prove that you are who you say you are. All of the evidence is stacked against you, my friend.
Put up or shut up. Case closed.