|
Main
Date: 15 Oct 2008 11:20:32
From: chessplayer
Subject: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
Kramnik made a few slight mistakes in game 2 where he did have a slight advantage. In move 26 he should have simply taken the pawn on c4. Even later on move 29 he could have played Rh6 instead of Nd3. Black could have pulled off a victory had he played more aggresively like he started earlier on. Also, when they decided to call it a draw it is actually a win for white (but a very difficult one). If perfect moves are calculated white could actually pull off a very difficult victory from the point of calling it a draw on move 32. However, I still feel Kramnik with his earlier aggresive moves could have pulled off a victory. But since neither Kramnik pushed for a victory and later since neither Anand did so I guess a draw in that sense was a fair result. At least this game was more exciting than the boring first one.
|
|
|
Date: 17 Oct 2008 21:44:51
From: chessplayer
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
On Oct 17, 6:16=A0pm, David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote: > chessplayer <[email protected]> wrote: > > David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote: > >> chessplayer <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> In the absence of 19-man tablebases, any comment about what > >>>> `perfect moves' can achieve from that position is pure speculation. > >>>> We suspect that perfect chess looks a lot like the chess that > >>>> strong computers and grandmasters play but there's a lot of > >>>> conditioning and reinforcement going on there. > > >>> Agreed. There may really be no such thing as perfect chess. > > >> There definitely is such a thing because chess is a finite two-player > >> game of perfect information. > > > I was merely being open to the suggestion but I too believe that there > > is perfect chess. > > Being `open to the suggestion' that there might be no such thing as > perfect chess is like being `open to the suggestion' that eight is an > odd number. =A0Well, except that the proof of determinacy for finite > two-player games of perfect information is rather more complex than > the proof that eight is even, so there's more scope for it containing > a mistake. > > > As I stated in my earlier post, the minute advantages of white > > cannot compensate for the immense factors at play in going for a > > draw. So, if both players are playing the perfect responses the only > > way one player can really win is if the other makes a mistake. > > There are no mistakes in perfect chess. =A0That's why it's called > perfect. ;-) > > > Can computers calculate all the perfect moves just by knowing all > > the moves of the chess pieces and the neccessary knowledges of the > > rules of the game. > > In principle, yes. =A0All you need to do is program a computer with the > rules of the game and have it search through the possibilities. =A0You > don't need an evaluation function, except to guide the search into > areas of the tree that look most promising. =A0Because, ultimately, > there are only three possible evaluations of a position: > > 1. whatever your opponent does, you have a way to checkmate him; > 2. whatever you do, your opponent has a way to checkmate you; > 3. as long as nobody makes a mistake, it's a draw. > > In perfect chess, there's no such thing as a `slight advantage'. > > There are two problems with this approach. =A0The first is that it would > take an unimaginably long time to come up with an answer. =A0The second > is that, to the best of my knowledge, it's the only one we have. > (Aside from optimizations such as tablebases.) > > > For instance I honestly believe that Kasparov's last championship > > against a computer (in the game which he won) was really not that > > great of a program. I would really like Kasparov to just play a game > > against Fritz or Chessmaster on a simple home computer running with > > a pentium 4 and a 3 GHz processor. If Kasparov can prove to me just > > on something so simple how he can beat the computer I would be > > convinced of his superiority over current programs and computers. > > Well, Kasparov retired three years ago, now. =A0He played a six-game > match against Deep Junior and a four-game match against (deep?) Fritz, > both in 2003. =A0Kramnik played an eight-game match against Deep Fritz > in 2002. =A0All of these matches were drawn. > Didn't Kasparov win one of those matches. > Dave. > > -- > David Richerby =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0Gigantic Lead Bulb (TM): it's likewww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/=A0= =A0 =A0 =A0 a light bulb that weighs a ton but > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 it's huge!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 18 Oct 2008 19:32:32
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
chessplayer <[email protected] > wrote: > David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote: >> chessplayer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> For instance I honestly believe that Kasparov's last championship >>> against a computer (in the game which he won) was really not that >>> great of a program. I would really like Kasparov to just play a >>> game against Fritz or Chessmaster on a simple home computer >>> running with a pentium 4 and a 3 GHz processor. >> >> Well, Kasparov retired three years ago, now. He played a six-game >> match against Deep Junior and a four-game match against (deep?) >> Fritz, both in 2003. Kramnik played an eight-game match against >> Deep Fritz in 2002. All of these matches were drawn. > > Didn't Kasparov win one of those matches. No. He won the 1996 match against IBM's Deep Blue but that ran on custom hardware. I didn't mention that match or the 1997 match against Deeper Blue (which Kasparov lost) as I was addressing your comment that Kasparov should play a match against a publicly available program running on commodity hardware. I don't recall any later matches against computers and Wikipedia doesn't mention any. Dave. -- David Richerby Swiss Apple (TM): it's like a tasty www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fruit but it's made in Switzerland!
|
|
Date: 16 Oct 2008 11:48:00
From: chessplayer
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
On Oct 16, 9:31=A0pm, David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote: > chessplayer <[email protected]> wrote: > > David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote: > >> chessplayer <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Also, when they decided to call it a draw it is actually a win for > >>> white (but a very difficult one). If perfect moves are calculated > >>> white could actually pull off a very difficult victory from the > >>> point of calling it a draw on move 32. > > >> In the absence of 19-man tablebases, any comment about what > >> `perfect moves' can achieve from that position is pure speculation. > >> We suspect that perfect chess looks a lot like the chess that > >> strong computers and grandmasters play but there's a lot of > >> conditioning and reinforcement going on there. > > > Agreed. There may really be no such thing as perfect chess. > > There definitely is such a thing because chess is a finite two-player > game of perfect information. I was merely being open to the suggestion but I too believe that there is perfect chess. Its just that if perfect chess does not exist today even on computers its only because we haven't discovered the way to make the perfect program which can attribute all the qualities in a mathematical way into the program. =A0As such, in any legal position, one or > both of the following is true > > 1. white has a strategy that guarantees at least a draw, regardless > =A0 =A0of black's responses; > 2. black has a strategy that guarantees at least a draw, regardless > =A0 =A0of white's responses. > > If only 1. holds, the position is a forced win for white (he can get > at least a draw but black guarantee a draw, so white must be able to > win against any defence); if only 2. holds, the position is a forced > win for black; if both hold, the position is drawn with best play. Well here it gets interesting. White may play for a draw and black in trying to go for a win might make a mistake by which white may end up winning and vice versa. Its going for a win which makes players take the extra chances which give opportunities to the other players. If there are moves by which a player can go for a win WITHOUT TAKING EXTRA CHANCES I disagree with that theory. As I stated in my earlier post, the minute advantages of white cannot compensate for the immense factors at play in going for a draw. So, if both players are playing the perfect responses the only way one player can really win is if the other makes a mistake. Depending upon the quality of the player and the mistake this can be exploited. Strategy as it is called so eloquently is nothing but a move which is overlooked by another player and therefore that player fails to counter that strategy and the time he or she should. Later on that strategic move proves deadly. So, the mistake was made by the player in not seeing where that earlier strategic move was made which may have looked innocuous at the time. I honestly believe that once all the parameters are put into a sophisticated chess program and we can calculate all the mathematical variations the game that will be played by the computers which have that chess program will be a perfect one. The question that remains to be asked is that do we know all the mathematical equations that go into making the perfect chess program. Can computers calculate all the perfect moves just by knowing all the moves of the chess pieces and the neccessary knowledges of the rules of the game. Over here, the pawn movements are critical. But giving each pawn at each level the pawn moves up a significantly higher value and coordinating that with the other pieces around is critical. If the chess program can take all these factors into consideration and calculate all the possible combinations to give the best possible move for every particular move we would certainly have a draw each time. > > These strategies define exactly what `perfect chess' is. =A0Now, if what > you actually mean is that we might never know what the strategies are, > I agree with you. =A0But the mathematics guarantees that they do exist, > even if we can never know what they are. Yes, the ordinary mortal could certainly not calculate all the possibilites but a sophisticated chess program on a supercomputer certainly could. Since the mathematics guarantees that the perfect moves exist the question becomes can we at least feed the mathematical equations into the program even though human beings cannot calculate all the possible combinations to find the perfect one certainly the computer can. Over here the question becomes do we know how to program ALL the mathematical equations into the computer program. > > > However, given the parameters of chess theory today I guess we could > > extrapolate what would be the perfect moves given our combined level > > of knowledge of chess theory. Of course that could be challenged > > tomorrow. > > No. =A0You can't extrapolate from `very good' to `perfect'. =A0Current > theory tells us that white should probably open the game with c4, d4, > e4 or Nf3 (in alphabetical order to avoid arguments about which is > best). =A0But, for all we know, black might have a forced win via 1.e4 > f6. =A0That's the problem with minimax -- the re-evaluation of a single > at great depth in the tree can change the evaluation of the root and > cause something that looks `close to perfect' today to look like > complete bunk tomorrow. > > >> It's still technically possible that chess is a forced win for > >> white but that the only winning opening move is a3. > > > True. But I believe that if "perfect" chess is played by both sides > > it will always result in a draw. > > Many other people believe that, too. =A0Some other people (though not, > it seems, so many) believe that chess is a forced win for white and a > few even believe it's a forced win for black (arguing that black, > moving second, always has more information about the position when he > moves). As I stated I feel that the tempo advantage of white is negated by the rules of chess which have many factors in it favoring a draw. However, the point of Black actually having an advantage is interesting. If not advantage at the very least black could have a neutral position in that the one tempo advantage of white gets negated by the fact that black always knows what white is doing and can therefore counter it. > > So, I'm not trying to discredit your opinion that perfect chess is a > draw. =A0Indeed, I think it probably is, too. =A0But this is just the > majority opinion and that doesn't make it true. Your points are certainly very interesting. > > > In fact whatever minute advantage white has by playing first is > > completely negated by the aspect of a draw. > > That is not a `fact' -- it is just your unproven belief. > > > However, I guess if theoritical "perfect" chess is played from any > > given point of a particular game (which in this case would be after > > move 18 of white in game 2) one could extrapolate who would be the > > most likely winner. > > Well, there's a subtlety here, about just how perfect we want our > perfect chess to be. :-) =A0The definition of `perfect' I gave earlier > is actually very strong -- it requires a strategy for perfect play > from every possible position, including such things as how to > checkmate with three knights against a lone king (there is a forced > mate, here). > > But it might be that, starting from the initial position, neither side > ever has to checkmate with three knights -- maybe that pawn always > gets promoted to a queen. =A0So, arguably, it's `perfect enough' to be > able to guarantee at least a draw from the initial position, and not > worry about positions that can never come up when the strategy is > followed. =A0This is a bit like saying that, if 1.e4 gives a forced win > for white, you don't need to know what to do after 1.d4 is played > because nobody would ever do that. > > So, perhaps the position in question is one of those that would never > come up in `perfect enough' chess so we wouldn't know how to play on > from there. > > In game theory terms, finding the way to play `perfect' chess is > usually called `strongly solving chess' and finding the way to play > `perfect enough' chess is called `weakly solving chess'. =A0There's > another category called `ultra-weakly solving' -- to ultra-weakly > solve chess, you'd just prove somehow that, for example, chess is a > draw with perfect play, but without actually demonstrating how to > achieve the draw. The interesting point to note here is that what we call perfect may just be the standard of sophistication we have achieved. Here the point to note would be just how much has chess theory advanced after the introduction of supercomputers and extremely powerful chess programs. Is it continuously evolving or are we seeing more and more draws being played out. For instance I honestly believe that Kasparov's last championship against a computer (in the game which he won) was really not that great of a program. I would really like Kasparov to just play a game against Fritz or Chessmaster on a simple home computer running with a pentium 4 and a 3 GHz processor. If Kasparov can prove to me just on something so simple how he can beat the computer I would be convinced of his superiority over current programs and computers. But I digress. The issue here is of trying to achieve perfection (since we both agree it exists even though we may never achieve it). > > > But its the mistakes which allow for someone to win. =A0In supergrand- > > masters and world champions the minutest of errors could result in a > > victory for the opponent. > > Actually, I would say the opposite. =A0The drawish nature of top-level > chess suggests that chess is not very sensitive to tiny mistakes. =A0If > you make a tiny mistake, there's a pretty good chance that all you've > done is make it slightly harder to get the draw. =A0And, in practical > terms, your opponent will probably make a tiny mistake back at you > before too long. I guess its the quantum of the mistake. As we saw in game 2 of the current championship. The mistakes went unnoticed and therefore were not exploited by these two world class players. But a subtle mistake which may go unnoticed by us might be exploited by them. Of course we see amongst club level players that leave alone mistakes, even blunders sometimes go unnoticed by some club level players and you have a situation where both players commit blunders and neither exploits them. This goes on till someone commits another blunder which sometimes gets noticed and the opponent exploits it. This has been a very interesting discussion. > > Dave. > > -- > David Richerby =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 Confusing Shack (TM): it's like awww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/=A0= =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0house in the woods but you can't > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0understand it!
|
| |
Date: 17 Oct 2008 14:16:05
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
chessplayer <[email protected] > wrote: > David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote: >> chessplayer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> In the absence of 19-man tablebases, any comment about what >>>> `perfect moves' can achieve from that position is pure speculation. >>>> We suspect that perfect chess looks a lot like the chess that >>>> strong computers and grandmasters play but there's a lot of >>>> conditioning and reinforcement going on there. >>> >>> Agreed. There may really be no such thing as perfect chess. >> >> There definitely is such a thing because chess is a finite two-player >> game of perfect information. > > I was merely being open to the suggestion but I too believe that there > is perfect chess. Being `open to the suggestion' that there might be no such thing as perfect chess is like being `open to the suggestion' that eight is an odd number. Well, except that the proof of determinacy for finite two-player games of perfect information is rather more complex than the proof that eight is even, so there's more scope for it containing a mistake. > As I stated in my earlier post, the minute advantages of white > cannot compensate for the immense factors at play in going for a > draw. So, if both players are playing the perfect responses the only > way one player can really win is if the other makes a mistake. There are no mistakes in perfect chess. That's why it's called perfect. ;-) > Can computers calculate all the perfect moves just by knowing all > the moves of the chess pieces and the neccessary knowledges of the > rules of the game. In principle, yes. All you need to do is program a computer with the rules of the game and have it search through the possibilities. You don't need an evaluation function, except to guide the search into areas of the tree that look most promising. Because, ultimately, there are only three possible evaluations of a position: 1. whatever your opponent does, you have a way to checkmate him; 2. whatever you do, your opponent has a way to checkmate you; 3. as long as nobody makes a mistake, it's a draw. In perfect chess, there's no such thing as a `slight advantage'. There are two problems with this approach. The first is that it would take an unimaginably long time to come up with an answer. The second is that, to the best of my knowledge, it's the only one we have. (Aside from optimizations such as tablebases.) > For instance I honestly believe that Kasparov's last championship > against a computer (in the game which he won) was really not that > great of a program. I would really like Kasparov to just play a game > against Fritz or Chessmaster on a simple home computer running with > a pentium 4 and a 3 GHz processor. If Kasparov can prove to me just > on something so simple how he can beat the computer I would be > convinced of his superiority over current programs and computers. Well, Kasparov retired three years ago, now. He played a six-game match against Deep Junior and a four-game match against (deep?) Fritz, both in 2003. Kramnik played an eight-game match against Deep Fritz in 2002. All of these matches were drawn. Dave. -- David Richerby Gigantic Lead Bulb (TM): it's like www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a light bulb that weighs a ton but it's huge!
|
|
Date: 16 Oct 2008 06:37:05
From: chessplayer
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
On Oct 16, 4:39=A0pm, David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote: > [Crosspost trimmed -- this has nothing to do with computer chess. > Anything that belongs in a more specific group is off-topic in .misc.] > > chessplayer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Also, when they decided to call it a draw it is actually a win for > > white (but a very difficult one). If perfect moves are calculated > > white could actually pull off a very difficult victory from the > > point of calling it a draw on move 32. > > In the absence of 19-man tablebases, any comment about what `perfect > moves' can achieve from that position is pure speculation. =A0We suspect > that perfect chess looks a lot like the chess that strong computers > and grandmasters play but there's a lot of conditioning and > reinforcement going on there. Agreed. There may really be no such thing as perfect chess. However, given the parameters of chess theory today I guess we could extrapolate what would be the perfect moves given our combined level of knowledge of chess theory. Of course that could be challenged tomorrow. > > It's still technically possible that chess is a forced win for white > but that the only winning opening move is a3. True. But I believe that if "perfect" chess is played by both sides it will always result in a draw. In fact whatever minute advantage white has by playing first is completely negated by the aspect of a draw. Since we have the 1) 50 moves draw rule. 2) Stalemate. 3) Cannot mate with just one bishop (and practically impossible although theoritically possible with 2 knights) black can always come up with a draw if black decides to do so from the very beginning as the rules allow for a draw due to certain conditions and even a material advantage is meaningless. However, I guess if theoritical "perfect" chess is played from any given point of a particular game (which in this case would be after move 18 of white in game 2) one could extrapolate who would be the most likely winner. But its the mistakes which allow for someone to win. In supergrandmasters and world champions the minutest of errors could result in a victory for the opponent. In lesser ranked players and club level players the big mistakes or blunders could result in a victory. (Provided of course the opponent can exploit those mistakes or blunders). > > Dave. > > -- > David Richerby =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Sum= erian Umbrella (TM): it's like anwww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/=A0 =A0= =A0 umbrella that's really old!
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2008 17:31:04
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
chessplayer <[email protected] > wrote: > David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote: >> chessplayer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Also, when they decided to call it a draw it is actually a win for >>> white (but a very difficult one). If perfect moves are calculated >>> white could actually pull off a very difficult victory from the >>> point of calling it a draw on move 32. >> >> In the absence of 19-man tablebases, any comment about what >> `perfect moves' can achieve from that position is pure speculation. >> We suspect that perfect chess looks a lot like the chess that >> strong computers and grandmasters play but there's a lot of >> conditioning and reinforcement going on there. > > Agreed. There may really be no such thing as perfect chess. There definitely is such a thing because chess is a finite two-player game of perfect information. As such, in any legal position, one or both of the following is true 1. white has a strategy that guarantees at least a draw, regardless of black's responses; 2. black has a strategy that guarantees at least a draw, regardless of white's responses. If only 1. holds, the position is a forced win for white (he can get at least a draw but black guarantee a draw, so white must be able to win against any defence); if only 2. holds, the position is a forced win for black; if both hold, the position is drawn with best play. These strategies define exactly what `perfect chess' is. Now, if what you actually mean is that we might never know what the strategies are, I agree with you. But the mathematics guarantees that they do exist, even if we can never know what they are. > However, given the parameters of chess theory today I guess we could > extrapolate what would be the perfect moves given our combined level > of knowledge of chess theory. Of course that could be challenged > tomorrow. No. You can't extrapolate from `very good' to `perfect'. Current theory tells us that white should probably open the game with c4, d4, e4 or Nf3 (in alphabetical order to avoid arguments about which is best). But, for all we know, black might have a forced win via 1.e4 f6. That's the problem with minimax -- the re-evaluation of a single at great depth in the tree can change the evaluation of the root and cause something that looks `close to perfect' today to look like complete bunk tomorrow. >> It's still technically possible that chess is a forced win for >> white but that the only winning opening move is a3. > > True. But I believe that if "perfect" chess is played by both sides > it will always result in a draw. Many other people believe that, too. Some other people (though not, it seems, so many) believe that chess is a forced win for white and a few even believe it's a forced win for black (arguing that black, moving second, always has more information about the position when he moves). So, I'm not trying to discredit your opinion that perfect chess is a draw. Indeed, I think it probably is, too. But this is just the majority opinion and that doesn't make it true. > In fact whatever minute advantage white has by playing first is > completely negated by the aspect of a draw. That is not a `fact' -- it is just your unproven belief. > However, I guess if theoritical "perfect" chess is played from any > given point of a particular game (which in this case would be after > move 18 of white in game 2) one could extrapolate who would be the > most likely winner. Well, there's a subtlety here, about just how perfect we want our perfect chess to be. :-) The definition of `perfect' I gave earlier is actually very strong -- it requires a strategy for perfect play from every possible position, including such things as how to checkmate with three knights against a lone king (there is a forced mate, here). But it might be that, starting from the initial position, neither side ever has to checkmate with three knights -- maybe that pawn always gets promoted to a queen. So, arguably, it's `perfect enough' to be able to guarantee at least a draw from the initial position, and not worry about positions that can never come up when the strategy is followed. This is a bit like saying that, if 1.e4 gives a forced win for white, you don't need to know what to do after 1.d4 is played because nobody would ever do that. So, perhaps the position in question is one of those that would never come up in `perfect enough' chess so we wouldn't know how to play on from there. In game theory terms, finding the way to play `perfect' chess is usually called `strongly solving chess' and finding the way to play `perfect enough' chess is called `weakly solving chess'. There's another category called `ultra-weakly solving' -- to ultra-weakly solve chess, you'd just prove somehow that, for example, chess is a draw with perfect play, but without actually demonstrating how to achieve the draw. > But its the mistakes which allow for someone to win. In supergrand- > masters and world champions the minutest of errors could result in a > victory for the opponent. Actually, I would say the opposite. The drawish nature of top-level chess suggests that chess is not very sensitive to tiny mistakes. If you make a tiny mistake, there's a pretty good chance that all you've done is make it slightly harder to get the draw. And, in practical terms, your opponent will probably make a tiny mistake back at you before too long. Dave. -- David Richerby Confusing Shack (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ house in the woods but you can't understand it!
|
| | |
Date: 17 Oct 2008 01:37:47
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:Wuu*[email protected]... > chessplayer <[email protected]> wrote: >> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote: >>> chessplayer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Also, when they decided to call it a draw it is actually a win for >>>> white (but a very difficult one). If perfect moves are calculated >>>> white could actually pull off a very difficult victory from the >>>> point of calling it a draw on move 32. >>> >>> In the absence of 19-man tablebases, any comment about what >>> `perfect moves' can achieve from that position is pure speculation. >>> We suspect that perfect chess looks a lot like the chess that >>> strong computers and grandmasters play but there's a lot of >>> conditioning and reinforcement going on there. >> >> Agreed. There may really be no such thing as perfect chess. > > There definitely is such a thing because chess is a finite two-player > game of perfect information. As such, in any legal position, one or > both of the following is true > > 1. white has a strategy that guarantees at least a draw, regardless > of black's responses; > 2. black has a strategy that guarantees at least a draw, regardless > of white's responses. > > If only 1. holds, the position is a forced win for white (he can get > at least a draw but black guarantee a draw, so white must be able to > win against any defence); if only 2. holds, the position is a forced > win for black; if both hold, the position is drawn with best play. > > These strategies define exactly what `perfect chess' is. Now, if what > you actually mean is that we might never know what the strategies are, > I agree with you. But the mathematics guarantees that they do exist, > even if we can never know what they are. > >> However, given the parameters of chess theory today I guess we could >> extrapolate what would be the perfect moves given our combined level >> of knowledge of chess theory. Of course that could be challenged >> tomorrow. > > No. You can't extrapolate from `very good' to `perfect'. Current > theory tells us that white should probably open the game with c4, d4, > e4 or Nf3 (in alphabetical order to avoid arguments about which is > best). But, for all we know, black might have a forced win via 1.e4 > f6. That's the problem with minimax -- the re-evaluation of a single > at great depth in the tree can change the evaluation of the root and > cause something that looks `close to perfect' today to look like > complete bunk tomorrow. > >>> It's still technically possible that chess is a forced win for >>> white but that the only winning opening move is a3. >> >> True. But I believe that if "perfect" chess is played by both sides >> it will always result in a draw. > > Many other people believe that, too. Some other people (though not, > it seems, so many) believe that chess is a forced win for white and a > few even believe it's a forced win for black (arguing that black, > moving second, always has more information about the position when he > moves). > > So, I'm not trying to discredit your opinion that perfect chess is a > draw. Indeed, I think it probably is, too. But this is just the > majority opinion and that doesn't make it true. > >> In fact whatever minute advantage white has by playing first is >> completely negated by the aspect of a draw. > > That is not a `fact' -- it is just your unproven belief. > >> However, I guess if theoritical "perfect" chess is played from any >> given point of a particular game (which in this case would be after >> move 18 of white in game 2) one could extrapolate who would be the >> most likely winner. > > Well, there's a subtlety here, about just how perfect we want our > perfect chess to be. :-) The definition of `perfect' I gave earlier > is actually very strong -- it requires a strategy for perfect play > from every possible position, including such things as how to > checkmate with three knights against a lone king (there is a forced > mate, here). > > But it might be that, starting from the initial position, neither side > ever has to checkmate with three knights -- maybe that pawn always > gets promoted to a queen. So, arguably, it's `perfect enough' to be > able to guarantee at least a draw from the initial position, and not > worry about positions that can never come up when the strategy is > followed. This is a bit like saying that, if 1.e4 gives a forced win > for white, you don't need to know what to do after 1.d4 is played > because nobody would ever do that. > > So, perhaps the position in question is one of those that would never > come up in `perfect enough' chess so we wouldn't know how to play on > from there. > > In game theory terms, finding the way to play `perfect' chess is > usually called `strongly solving chess' and finding the way to play > `perfect enough' chess is called `weakly solving chess'. There's > another category called `ultra-weakly solving' -- to ultra-weakly > solve chess, you'd just prove somehow that, for example, chess is a > draw with perfect play, but without actually demonstrating how to > achieve the draw. While everything you say is true enough, it doesn't address the real question. Namely, can you "know" the result without proving it? People have played chess a long time, and people have reached conclusions about the game. It is not valid to claim that an absence of proof means that no conclusions can be reached. An absence of proof is simply not evidence of anything. For example, it is *not* evidence in support of the speculation that 1. e4 f6 is a forced win for Black. To illustrate, imagine a simpler version of chess. 4 symmetrical pawns each on the same side of the board, a couple of minor pieces each, no immediate tactics- the type of position that everyone will immediately recognize as being a draw with best play. Yet even such an obvious draw could be hard to prove as there are still 14 pieces on the board. Do you think Queen odds is a forced win? OK, prove it. Or take checkers. Known to be drawn for ages, the proof has recently been completed. It was an exercize that taught humans absolutely nothing. These proof arguments are akin to saying that we can never know the excited states of a hydrogen atom until we perform a physical test on every such atom in the universe. While such an argument might keep some philosophers busy, it comes across as just daft to the scientist. >> But its the mistakes which allow for someone to win. In supergrand- >> masters and world champions the minutest of errors could result in a >> victory for the opponent. > > Actually, I would say the opposite. The drawish nature of top-level > chess suggests that chess is not very sensitive to tiny mistakes. If > you make a tiny mistake, there's a pretty good chance that all you've > done is make it slightly harder to get the draw. And, in practical > terms, your opponent will probably make a tiny mistake back at you > before too long. > > > Dave. > > -- > David Richerby Confusing Shack (TM): it's like a > www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ house in the woods but you can't > understand it!
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2008 13:38:34
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
David Kane <[email protected] > wrote: > "David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote: >> [...] >> No. You can't extrapolate from `very good' to `perfect'. Current >> theory tells us that white should probably open the game with c4, >> d4, e4 or Nf3 (in alphabetical order to avoid arguments about which >> is best). But, for all we know, black might have a forced win via >> 1.e4 f6. That's the problem with minimax -- the re-evaluation of a >> single at great depth in the tree can change the evaluation of the >> root and cause something that looks `close to perfect' today to >> look like complete bunk tomorrow. >> [...] > > While everything you say is true enough, it doesn't address the real > question. Namely, can you "know" the result without proving it? > > People have played chess a long time, and people have reached > conclusions about the game. It is not valid to claim that an absence > of proof means that no conclusions can be reached. The question of whether chess is a forced win or draw is *exactly* a question of proof. Without proof there is no forced win or forced draw. I *believe* that, with best play, chess is a draw. But that's not nearly the same thing as knowing it. I also believe that, even if chess is proven to be a forced win for either side, > An absence of proof is simply not evidence of anything. For example, > it is *not* evidence in support of the speculation that 1. e4 f6 is > a forced win for Black. I never took the absence of a solution to chess as evidence that 1.e4 f6 is a forced win for black! The text is quoted above. My point is that we are getting very good at a certain kind of chess. Anyone who studies chess gets taught to play in a certain way. The grandmasters all play in essentially the same way. The computers are taught to play like grandmasters; the grandmasters teach themselves to play like computers. We'd like to think that this kind of chess that we're playing is the right kind but we don't actually know that. Back in the 19th Century, people got very good at playing a certain kind of attacking, sacrificial, devil-may-care chess. Maybe they thought they were well on the way to playing perfect chess and that it was a win for white. And then Steinitz came along and said, `This is all rubbish! You should play like this.' > Do you think Queen odds is a forced win? Yes. (For the side with the queen.) > OK, prove it. I can't. Hence, I don't claim to *know* that queen odds is a forced win. > Or take checkers. Known to be drawn for ages, the proof has recently > been completed. It was an exercize that taught humans absolutely > nothing. Not at all. It taught us that our intuition about the drawishness of checkers was correct. > These proof arguments are akin to saying that we can never know > the excited states of a hydrogen atom until we perform a physical > test on every such atom in the universe. Huh? Dave. -- David Richerby Slimy Smokes (TM): it's like a pack www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of cigarettes but it's covered in goo!
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Oct 2008 07:54:18
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:YJr*[email protected]... > David Kane <[email protected]> wrote: >> "David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> [...] >>> No. You can't extrapolate from `very good' to `perfect'. Current >>> theory tells us that white should probably open the game with c4, >>> d4, e4 or Nf3 (in alphabetical order to avoid arguments about which >>> is best). But, for all we know, black might have a forced win via >>> 1.e4 f6. That's the problem with minimax -- the re-evaluation of a >>> single at great depth in the tree can change the evaluation of the >>> root and cause something that looks `close to perfect' today to >>> look like complete bunk tomorrow. >>> [...] >> >> While everything you say is true enough, it doesn't address the real >> question. Namely, can you "know" the result without proving it? >> >> People have played chess a long time, and people have reached >> conclusions about the game. It is not valid to claim that an absence >> of proof means that no conclusions can be reached. > > The question of whether chess is a forced win or draw is *exactly* a > question of proof. Without proof there is no forced win or forced > draw. > Not so. Chinook, e.g. played perfectly long before the checkers proof was found. Give me Q +R +R+ B+ N odds, and I can force a win without proving it. > I *believe* that, with best play, chess is a draw. But that's not > nearly the same thing as knowing it. I also believe that, even if > chess is proven to be a forced win for either side, > >> An absence of proof is simply not evidence of anything. For example, >> it is *not* evidence in support of the speculation that 1. e4 f6 is >> a forced win for Black. > > I never took the absence of a solution to chess as evidence that 1.e4 > f6 is a forced win for black! The text is quoted above. But the point is that your speculation that 1.e4 f6 might be a Black win was not supported by any evidence. On the other hand, those arguing the contrary position can provide all sorts of evidence. (generating move trees that give White a good position) Is there a colony of genius monkey-like creatures living in the interior of Mercury who spend their existence playing a game much more complex than chess? I can't prove (in your sense) there isn't, but I can provide lots of biological and planetary science evidence arguing against the possibility. >My point is that we are getting very good at a certain kind of chess. > Anyone who studies chess gets taught to play in a certain way. The > grandmasters all play in essentially the same way. The computers are > taught to play like grandmasters; the grandmasters teach themselves to > play like computers. We'd like to think that this kind of chess that > we're playing is the right kind but we don't actually know that. Back > in the 19th Century, people got very good at playing a certain kind of > attacking, sacrificial, devil-may-care chess. Maybe they thought they > were well on the way to playing perfect chess and that it was a win > for white. And then Steinitz came along and said, `This is all > rubbish! You should play like this.' > >> Do you think Queen odds is a forced win? > > Yes. (For the side with the queen.) > >> OK, prove it. > > I can't. Hence, I don't claim to *know* that queen odds is a forced > win. > >> Or take checkers. Known to be drawn for ages, the proof has recently >> been completed. It was an exercize that taught humans absolutely >> nothing. > > Not at all. It taught us that our intuition about the drawishness of > checkers was correct. The knowledge that checkers was a draw was not intuition. It was based on centuries of empirical evidence based on careful examination of the game. Is it rational to discount such evidence for no reason but that it is not mathematical proof. Of course not. > >> These proof arguments are akin to saying that we can never know >> the excited states of a hydrogen atom until we perform a physical >> test on every such atom in the universe. > > Huh? > > > Dave. > > -- > David Richerby Slimy Smokes (TM): it's like a pack > www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of cigarettes but it's covered in goo!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Oct 2008 19:59:45
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
David Kane <[email protected] > wrote: > "David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote: >> David Kane <[email protected]> wrote: >>> People have played chess a long time, and people have reached >>> conclusions about the game. It is not valid to claim that an >>> absence of proof means that no conclusions can be reached. >> >> The question of whether chess is a forced win or draw is *exactly* >> a question of proof. Without proof there is no forced win or >> forced draw. > > Not so. Chinook, e.g. played perfectly long before the checkers > proof was found. No. Chinook played extremely well long before the checkers proof was found. Chinook did not `force' wins until it got close to its endgame tablebases. Earlier in the game, it merely found ways to continue that looked very much like they were winning. > Give me Q +R +R+ B+ N odds, and I can force a win without proving > it. No. You can obtain a win. You haven't forced the win until you can demonstrate a win against every possible defensive strategy. >>> An absence of proof is simply not evidence of anything. For >>> example, it is *not* evidence in support of the speculation that >>> 1. e4 f6 is a forced win for Black. >> >> I never took the absence of a solution to chess as evidence that >> 1.e4 f6 is a forced win for black! The text is quoted above. > > But the point is that your speculation that 1.e4 f6 might be a Black > win was not supported by any evidence. On the other hand, those > arguing the contrary position can provide all sorts of > evidence. (generating move trees that give White a good position) Yes, there is lots of really good evidence that 1.e4 f6 is bad for black. The positions you that are reached look as if they give white the advantage. After a reasonable-looking amount of analysis, nobody can find sufficient compensation for black. It *probably* isn't there but people don't (and can't) analyze everything out to the bitter end. There comes a point where one's time is better spent on lines that *look* more promising and that are much more likely to come up in practice. (In practical terms, who cares if 1.e4 f6 is a forced win for black if, for the first forty moves, he has to play an intricate series of only moves and loses if he gets any of them wrong? Nobody would manage to play that right.) > Is there a colony of genius monkey-like creatures living in the > interior of Mercury who spend their existence playing a game much > more complex than chess? I can't prove (in your sense) there isn't, > but I can provide lots of biological and planetary science evidence > arguing against the possibility. This is irrelevant. Nobody is talking about Mercurian genius monkeys, the existence of which is not a mathematical statement and, therefore, not amenable to proof. In contrast, the statement that chess is a draw with perfect play is precisely a statement of mathematics and, therefore, mathematical proof is the only way of *knowing* it to be true. We can happily go around *believing* chess to be a draw with perfect play on the evidence that exists. We can also believe that the current evolution of grandmaster chess is leading towards a drawn game. >>> Or take checkers. Known to be drawn for ages, the proof has >>> recently been completed. It was an exercize that taught humans >>> absolutely nothing. >> >> Not at all. It taught us that our intuition about the drawishness >> of checkers was correct. > > The knowledge that checkers was a draw was not intuition. OK. It taught us that our empirical belief in the drawishness of checkers was correct. There was no elusive counter-intuitive winning line, after all. It was unlikely that there would be but, until the proof, we couldn't be certain. > It was based on centuries of empirical evidence based on careful > examination of the game. So was the belief that the endgame of KRRN vs KRR was drawn, even discarding the fifty-move rule. Even many winning KQP vs KQ endgames were thought to be drawn until tablebases came along. If centuries of empirical evidence can get a `simple' five-man endgame wrong, why do we believe we're right about the 32-man endgame? > Is it rational to discount such evidence for no reason but that it > is not mathematical proof. Of course not. I am not discounting the empirical evidence. I am merely pointing out that no amount of empirical evidence (except for a pruned game tree) is sufficient to justify *knowledge* that chess is drawn, rather than just *belief*. In the case of mathematics, it is precisely proof that separates knowledge from belief. Dave. -- David Richerby Crystal Addictive Cat (TM): it's like www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a cat but you can never put it down and it's completely transparent!
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 19 Oct 2008 11:20:55
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:PAp*[email protected]... > David Kane <[email protected]> wrote: >> "David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> David Kane <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> People have played chess a long time, and people have reached >>>> conclusions about the game. It is not valid to claim that an >>>> absence of proof means that no conclusions can be reached. >>> >>> The question of whether chess is a forced win or draw is *exactly* >>> a question of proof. Without proof there is no forced win or >>> forced draw. >> >> Not so. Chinook, e.g. played perfectly long before the checkers >> proof was found. > > No. Chinook played extremely well long before the checkers proof was > found. Chinook did not `force' wins until it got close to its endgame > tablebases. Earlier in the game, it merely found ways to continue > that looked very much like they were winning. > >> Give me Q +R +R+ B+ N odds, and I can force a win without proving >> it. > > No. You can obtain a win. You haven't forced the win until you can > demonstrate a win against every possible defensive strategy. > >>>> An absence of proof is simply not evidence of anything. For >>>> example, it is *not* evidence in support of the speculation that >>>> 1. e4 f6 is a forced win for Black. >>> >>> I never took the absence of a solution to chess as evidence that >>> 1.e4 f6 is a forced win for black! The text is quoted above. >> >> But the point is that your speculation that 1.e4 f6 might be a Black >> win was not supported by any evidence. On the other hand, those >> arguing the contrary position can provide all sorts of >> evidence. (generating move trees that give White a good position) > > Yes, there is lots of really good evidence that 1.e4 f6 is bad for > black. The positions you that are reached look as if they give white > the advantage. After a reasonable-looking amount of analysis, nobody > can find sufficient compensation for black. It *probably* isn't there > but people don't (and can't) analyze everything out to the bitter end. > There comes a point where one's time is better spent on lines that > *look* more promising and that are much more likely to come up in > practice. (In practical terms, who cares if 1.e4 f6 is a forced win > for black if, for the first forty moves, he has to play an intricate > series of only moves and loses if he gets any of them wrong? Nobody > would manage to play that right.) > >> Is there a colony of genius monkey-like creatures living in the >> interior of Mercury who spend their existence playing a game much >> more complex than chess? I can't prove (in your sense) there isn't, >> but I can provide lots of biological and planetary science evidence >> arguing against the possibility. > > This is irrelevant. Nobody is talking about Mercurian genius monkeys, > the existence of which is not a mathematical statement and, therefore, > not amenable to proof. In contrast, the statement that chess is a > draw with perfect play is precisely a statement of mathematics and, > therefore, mathematical proof is the only way of *knowing* it to be > true. > > We can happily go around *believing* chess to be a draw with perfect > play on the evidence that exists. We can also believe that the > current evolution of grandmaster chess is leading towards a drawn > game. > >>>> Or take checkers. Known to be drawn for ages, the proof has >>>> recently been completed. It was an exercize that taught humans >>>> absolutely nothing. >>> >>> Not at all. It taught us that our intuition about the drawishness >>> of checkers was correct. >> >> The knowledge that checkers was a draw was not intuition. > > OK. It taught us that our empirical belief in the drawishness of > checkers was correct. There was no elusive counter-intuitive winning > line, after all. It was unlikely that there would be but, until the > proof, we couldn't be certain. > >> It was based on centuries of empirical evidence based on careful >> examination of the game. > > So was the belief that the endgame of KRRN vs KRR was drawn, even > discarding the fifty-move rule. Even many winning KQP vs KQ endgames > were thought to be drawn until tablebases came along. If centuries of > empirical evidence can get a `simple' five-man endgame wrong, why do > we believe we're right about the 32-man endgame? On the whole, computer examination has confirmed human understanding of the game. Sure there might be a handful of interesting findings in contrived endgames that never occur in reality and which humans had no need to analyze, but chess understanding has not been transformed. > >> Is it rational to discount such evidence for no reason but that it >> is not mathematical proof. Of course not. > > I am not discounting the empirical evidence. I am merely pointing out > that no amount of empirical evidence (except for a pruned game tree) > is sufficient to justify *knowledge* that chess is drawn, rather than > just *belief*. In the case of mathematics, it is precisely proof that > separates knowledge from belief. > Do people "believe" that the earth revolves around the sun, or do they "know" it? If you want to get literal, then you should realize that it is impossible in principle to "prove" that chess is a draw because the game of chess (played by people moving plastic pieces etc.) is not the same as its mathematical approximation to which you refer. The strongly solved 32-man tablebase won't help you obtain the theoretical result if you die in the middle of the game, e.g.. I don't see anything in your argument that justifies what seems to be your position that mathematical "proof" is the only driver of knowledge. My point was that in the current discussion, mathematical proof is little more than a red herring. Issues should be resolved by examination of the evidence. Period.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Oct 2008 16:26:26
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
David Kane <[email protected] > wrote: > David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote: >> So was the belief that the endgame of KRRN vs KRR was drawn, even >> discarding the fifty-move rule. Even many winning KQP vs KQ >> endgames were thought to be drawn until tablebases came along. > > On the whole, computer examination has confirmed human understanding > of the game. On the whole, yes. But I've already made the point that computers and grandmasters are a mutually reinforcing system that could, in theory, be barking up the wrong tree. The fact that a computer that's been programmed to play like a GM and a GM who's trained by using computers agree on how chess should be played is hardly surprising. > Sure there might be a handful of interesting findings in contrived > endgames that never occur in reality and which humans had no need to > analyze, but chess understanding has not been transformed. KQP vs KQ is not a `contrived endgame that never occurs in reality.' >> I am not discounting the empirical evidence. I am merely pointing >> out that no amount of empirical evidence (except for a pruned game >> tree) is sufficient to justify *knowledge* that chess is drawn, >> rather than just *belief*. In the case of mathematics, it is >> precisely proof that separates knowledge from belief. > > Do people "believe" that the earth revolves around the sun, or do > they "know" it? This is as irrelevant as all your other examples involving physical systems. > If you want to get literal, then you should realize that it is > impossible in principle to "prove" that chess is a draw because the > game of chess (played by people moving plastic pieces etc.) is not > the same as its mathematical approximation to which you refer. The > strongly solved 32-man tablebase won't help you obtain the > theoretical result if you die in the middle of the game, e.g.. Dying in the middle of the game is not `perfect play'. (Except in a losing position, where any move, including losing on time, is as good as any other. ;-) ) Indeed, by raising this issue you're shooting yourself in the foot. Since any player of chess could die at any time (and, more likely, receive a call on their mobile phone), it's impossible to `know' the outcome of any real chess game, regardless of the skill of the players. > I don't see anything in your argument that justifies what seems to > be your position that mathematical "proof" is the only driver of > knowledge. I have never asserted any such thing. I have merely asserted that a statement of mathematics cannot be described as `knowledge' unless it has been proven. I have also asserted that the statement `chess is a draw with perfect play' is a statement of mathematics. > My point was that in the current discussion, mathematical proof is > little more than a red herring. No. It is the very essence of the issue. > Issues should be resolved by examination of the evidence. Period. I have already explained why examination of the evidence is insufficient to come to anything more than an educated belief about the game-theoretic outcome of chess. Dave. -- David Richerby Incredible Sushi (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ raw fish but it'll blow your mind!
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Oct 2008 06:05:13
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:EmF*[email protected]... > David Kane <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Do people "believe" that the earth revolves around the sun, or do >> they "know" it? > > This is as irrelevant as all your other examples involving physical > systems. Not at all. It demonstrates the absurdity of your argument - hinging as it does on invented nuance in language. > >> I don't see anything in your argument that justifies what seems to >> be your position that mathematical "proof" is the only driver of >> knowledge. > > I have never asserted any such thing. I have merely asserted that a > statement of mathematics cannot be described as `knowledge' unless it > has been proven. I have also asserted that the statement `chess is a > draw with perfect play' is a statement of mathematics. > >> My point was that in the current discussion, mathematical proof is >> little more than a red herring. > > No. It is the very essence of the issue. > >> Issues should be resolved by examination of the evidence. Period. > > I have already explained why examination of the evidence is > insufficient to come to anything more than an educated belief about > the game-theoretic outcome of chess. > I suppose that it is harmless to allow you your "educated belief" language in this case. But the danger in doing so is that the essence of your irrationality is identical to that which appears in other more weighty debates. For example, the creationist's primary argument (in one form or another) is that evidence in favor of theory of evolution can be discarded because it does not definitively account for the whereabouts of each and every biological cell in the universe. Hence, it's just a "theory". This mirrors almost exactly your argument that we can't know whether Queen odds is a win until we've catalogued the win against each and every possible defense. Essentially you discredit the scientific process by raising the bar for evidence to an unreachable level. An assertion like "maybe the Queen-down side has a drawing resource, but we (and computers that we've programmed) just haven't figured it out yet, is *not* evidence. It's just silliness.
|
|
Date: 16 Oct 2008 12:39:34
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
[Crosspost trimmed -- this has nothing to do with computer chess. Anything that belongs in a more specific group is off-topic in .misc.] chessplayer <[email protected] > wrote: > Also, when they decided to call it a draw it is actually a win for > white (but a very difficult one). If perfect moves are calculated > white could actually pull off a very difficult victory from the > point of calling it a draw on move 32. In the absence of 19-man tablebases, any comment about what `perfect moves' can achieve from that position is pure speculation. We suspect that perfect chess looks a lot like the chess that strong computers and grandmasters play but there's a lot of conditioning and reinforcement going on there. It's still technically possible that chess is a forced win for white but that the only winning opening move is a3. Dave. -- David Richerby Sumerian Umbrella (TM): it's like an www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ umbrella that's really old!
|
|
Date: 16 Oct 2008 00:19:34
From: chessplayer
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
On Oct 16, 3:41=A0am, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote: > On Oct 15, 7:20 pm, chessplayer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Kramnik made a few slight mistakes in game 2 where he did have a > > slight advantage. In move 26 he should have simply taken the pawn on > > c4. Even later on move 29 he could have played Rh6 instead of Nd3. > > Black could have pulled off a victory had he played more aggresively > > like he started earlier on. > > After 26...Qxc4 then 27.Bxh6 would have resulted in a standard Stoke- > Adams Attack and white would have won as quick as a Rumanian fart. He should have taken c4 with the knight and not the queen, provided he had played properly on move 25. Don't criticize unless you understand what is written. If you don't understand at least ask with what he should have taken c4.
|
|
Date: 16 Oct 2008 00:10:38
From: chessplayer
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
On Oct 16, 5:17=A0am, Simon Krahnke <[email protected] > wrote: > * Offramp <[email protected]> (00:41) schrieb: > > > On Oct 15, 7:20 pm, chessplayer <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Kramnik made a few slight mistakes in game 2 where he did have a > >> slight advantage. In move 26 he should have simply taken the pawn on > >> c4. Even later on move 29 he could have played Rh6 instead of Nd3. > >> Black could have pulled off a victory had he played more aggresively > >> like he started earlier on. > > > After 26...Qxc4 then 27.Bxh6 would have resulted in a standard Stoke- > > Adams Attack and white would have won as quick as a Rumanian fart. > > I wonder in which groups these threads are on-topic. Certainly not > rec.games.chess.computer. > > mfg, =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 simon .... l I did post in on rec.games.chess.computer but it may not have come on it. I honestly feel (after analyzing the game after move 18 when white plays Qe2), that it was clearly black's game from there onwards. However, Kramnik let off the pressure and played it safe. Ironically when they both agreed to a draw on move 32 it was just about a very slight edge to Anand. But I guess the mental drain that occurs after such a game you cannot blame Anand for not trying to push for a win.
|
|
Date: 16 Oct 2008 00:07:44
From: chessplayer
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
On Oct 16, 3:41=A0am, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote: > On Oct 15, 7:20 pm, chessplayer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Kramnik made a few slight mistakes in game 2 where he did have a > > slight advantage. In move 26 he should have simply taken the pawn on > > c4. Even later on move 29 he could have played Rh6 instead of Nd3. > > Black could have pulled off a victory had he played more aggresively > > like he started earlier on. > > After 26...Qxc4 then 27.Bxh6 would have resulted in a standard Stoke- > Adams Attack and white would have won as quick as a Rumanian fart. After 18 when white played qe2 it was black's game but Kramnik did not play as he should have. Even then he could have won it upto move 26 but he made a few minor mistakes as to what he should have played. Later on when he was a pawn down he could still have played c5 before white did so. Anyway, its my opinion that after move 17 Qe3+ it was clearly black's game. If you want we can go to a chess website and play from thereonwards using whatever software to aid you.
|
|
Date: 16 Oct 2008 02:17:42
From: Simon Krahnke
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
* Offramp <[email protected] > (00:41) schrieb: > On Oct 15, 7:20 pm, chessplayer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Kramnik made a few slight mistakes in game 2 where he did have a >> slight advantage. In move 26 he should have simply taken the pawn on >> c4. Even later on move 29 he could have played Rh6 instead of Nd3. >> Black could have pulled off a victory had he played more aggresively >> like he started earlier on. > > After 26...Qxc4 then 27.Bxh6 would have resulted in a standard Stoke- > Adams Attack and white would have won as quick as a Rumanian fart. I wonder in which groups these threads are on-topic. Certainly not rec.games.chess.computer. mfg, simon .... l
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2008 08:20:50
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
"Simon Krahnke" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... >* Offramp <[email protected]> (00:41) schrieb: > >> On Oct 15, 7:20 pm, chessplayer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Kramnik made a few slight mistakes in game 2 where he did have a >>> slight advantage. In move 26 he should have simply taken the pawn on >>> c4. Even later on move 29 he could have played Rh6 instead of Nd3. >>> Black could have pulled off a victory had he played more aggresively >>> like he started earlier on. >> >> After 26...Qxc4 then 27.Bxh6 would have resulted in a standard Stoke- >> Adams Attack and white would have won as quick as a Rumanian fart. > > I wonder in which groups these threads are on-topic. Certainly not > rec.games.chess.computer. I beg our pardons, but it is difficult always to assess what /is/ on topic at chess.computer, since it seems to prefer to discuss abstractions. That may seem to be a trite comment on the whole realm, but divorcing the chess from the computer has often sems to me to be a pointless exercise - for example, if what alan obrien writes about is true - can the computer evaluate it? Interestingly the most advanced chess conversations seek to reintegrate man/machine - such as in Albert Albert's MAMS studies, and I obtained for Dr A an introduction to Rybka's inventor, who certainly thought so! From the chessic point of view - if the chess engine cannot see what we people see, then its evaluation function is insufficient, and MAMS suggests that this is because the engine still has great difficulty perceiving exchangesw of material for other advantages. Without solving this aspect of chess computing, then the subject is as stalled as it was 10 years ago, and only processor speed and bigger databases and end-tables cause its advance - in other words, things largely independent of the program intself. Phil Innes > mfg, simon .... l
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2008 14:52:41
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
Chess One <[email protected] > wrote: > "Simon Krahnke" <[email protected]> wrote: >> I wonder in which groups these threads are on-topic. Certainly not >> rec.games.chess.computer. > > I beg our pardons, but it is difficult always to assess what /is/ on > topic at chess.computer, since it seems to prefer to discuss > abstractions. It's very simple, Phil. If it's an article *about* computer chess, it's on-topic in rgc.computer. If it isn't about computer chess, it's off-topic, even if it uses analysis from a chess computer. Analysis done by computer is off topic, unless the angle is why the computer `thought' what it did. So, discussion about why all the computers think that such and such a move was really bad is on-topic -- the goal is to better understand computer chess. Discussion about why Anand or Kramnik did or did not play such and such a move is off-topic -- the goal is to better understand a game played by humans. > That may seem to be a trite comment on the whole realm, but > divorcing the chess from the computer has often sems to me to be a > pointless exercise - for example, if what alan obrien writes about > is true - can the computer evaluate it? There is no attempt to divorce chess from computers. However, if one is commenting on an Anand-Kramnik game, even using computer analysis as a tool, this is no more on-topic in rgc.computer (I used Fritz!) than it is on comp.os.windows (it was running under XP!). > From the chessic point of view - if the chess engine cannot see what > we people see, then its evaluation function is insufficient A discussion along those lines would be entirely on-topic and welcome in rgc.computer. Dave. -- David Richerby Swiss Erotic Chicken (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ farm animal but it's genuinely erotic and made in Switzerland!
|
|
Date: 15 Oct 2008 15:41:51
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: In game 2 Kramnik had a slight advantage upto move 25.
|
On Oct 15, 7:20 pm, chessplayer <[email protected] > wrote: > Kramnik made a few slight mistakes in game 2 where he did have a > slight advantage. In move 26 he should have simply taken the pawn on > c4. Even later on move 29 he could have played Rh6 instead of Nd3. > Black could have pulled off a victory had he played more aggresively > like he started earlier on. After 26...Qxc4 then 27.Bxh6 would have resulted in a standard Stoke- Adams Attack and white would have won as quick as a Rumanian fart.
|
|