| |
Main
Date: 28 Jan 2008 10:22:13
From: pialogue
Subject: Solving Chess
|
I realize that not everyone is interested in the concept of "solving
chess" due to its many complexities and variations of "midgame" play.
However, what if the SECRET to solving chess is in the "draw"
dynamic? In other words what if the solution to chess was in playing
perfect "defense"? Would not a perfectly played game of chess NOT
result in a draw? How else could it end? The ONLY way that someone
"wins" is if a "mistake" was made, right? Therefore, if someone wins
then that was NOT a "perfect" game played by both sides.
It has been said that it is possible for white to force a draw in a
number of ways but I am talking about a "perfect game" here where both
sides apply perfect strategy which is oriented or strategized toward
long-term defense more than offense. I know that some people think
that the game would then just be "stuck" with no one able to move but
this dynamic plays into what I call "viable strategy" where a stuck
game draw is the same as a loss for BOTH sides. In other words, a
"true" draw under the "perfect" scenario ends with ONLY the two Kings
on the board.
So, what are your thoughts on "Solving Chess"?
Any thoughts on the best chess game ever played by either human or
computer would also be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for your potential participation in this intellectual inquiry.
|
|
| |
Date: 10 Feb 2008 22:33:35
From: jefk
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
On Feb 10, 7:44 pm, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> Are you still facing any problem in playing? >
no i managed to get in, although i got an email asking me to
verify the verification code, and when i did that i got
the message 'verification code and user id dont match'';
get i could simply login, thereafter, so it *does* match..
>Ask you spam filter to allow mails from that email.
i've simply reset the settings eg accepting the sender
for that particular email
>Can you send me the details why the Spam
> Filter Stopped the mail? What was the reasion for filtering it.
dont know, its a filter at the internet provider, and these
filters are never perfect; it probably recognizes
you getclub.com is a commercial site
>
> What is your webserver name and which filter do you use?
well you can see which provider people have from
their email, so you have to ask such providers
which kind of filters they use :)
jef
PS i found the applause after each chess move
annoying, and again, i hope you can implement
this 3 move drawing rule. i also suspect
the beginner level now has higher rating
in fact than the 1000 you have estimated,
but maybe that's based on standard
time controls when a human would play
eg a long game of 90 minutes; most humans
wont have the patience to play such game,
and would only take about 10 minutes, eg.
blitz to play a game of chess at your site
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 10 Feb 2008 22:27:13
From: jefk
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
On Feb 10, 7:46 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> You are proving that players with equal ratings draw each other.
> What's the surprise that a computer, playing itself with the same
> evaluation functions, draws?
the point was not the engine, but the opening lines,
played with the strongest engine possible.
there's simply no other engine as strong as Rybka.
if i would play inferior opening lines, played with
the same engine, you still can expect to see
wins for white (in case of inferior line for black,
eg an unsound gambit like the Latvian)
or wins for black (in case of inferior lines for white,
eg an unsound gambit, eg e4 g5?)
i've also played rybka vs other engines ofcourse,
but then the effect of opening theory is ginal,
the engine still is more important, but i expect
this effect will later converge to almost 100 % draws.
as i wrote earlier, with a ryba on a fast comp,
playing against the -even stronger- supercomp/engine
Hydra, i would still expect a lot of draws.
The higher the average rating between the two engines, the
higher the drawing gin, provided the opening lines
are correct. so in perfect chess, all games will be draw.
|
| |
Date: 10 Feb 2008 10:46:05
From:
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
On Feb 10, 9:35=A0am, jefk <[email protected] > wrote:
> below some drawn endgames with standard time control
> (5 man egtb), dual core AMD4200x64
> (in first two games you see 50 move rule,
> thereafter insufficient material to mate),
> some clear examples of the drawish nature of chess
> (black didnt play 100 % perfect yet, lets say 99.8 % perfect,
> white got a small advantage at least in the Rybka score,
> but obviously couldnt win in the endgames(s) :
>
> [Event "Test_long games"]
> [Date "2008.02.09"]
> [Round "24"]
> [White "Rybkav2.3.2a.x64 [mainbk [001]"]
> [Black "Rybkav2.3.2a.x64 [mainbk"]
> [Result "1/2-1/2"]
> [ECO "C94"]
> [WhiteElo "3200"]
> [BlackElo "3200"]
> [PlyCount "271"]
> [TimeControl "5400"]
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3
> d6 8. c3
> O-O 9. h3 Nb8 10. d3 Nbd7 11. Nbd2 Bb7 12. Nf1 Nc5 13. Bc2 Re8 14. Be3
> Bf8 15.
> Ng3 g6 16. b4 Ne6 17. a4 Bg7 18. Bb3 Qe7 19. Qd2 Qd7 20. Qc2 Rec8 21.
> d4 exd4
> 22. cxd4 d5 23. e5 Ne4 24. Nxe4 dxe4 25. Ng5 Nxg5 26. Bxg5 Bf8 27.
> Rxe4 Qf5 28.
> Rg4 Qxc2 29. Bxc2 Bxb4 30. axb5 axb5 31. Rb1 h5 32. Rg3 c5 33. e6 Ra6
> 34. Bf4
> Kf8 35. exf7 Kxf7 36. Rg5 Ba8 37. Rd1 c4 38. Rxb5 Bd6 39. Bxd6 Rxd6
> 40. d5 c3
> 41. f4 Kf6 42. Kf2 Rcd8 43. Be4 c2 44. Bxc2 Bxd5 45. g4 hxg4 46. hxg4
> g5 47. f5
> Bc4 48. Rc5 Rd2+ 49. Kg3 Rxd1 50. Bxd1 Rd3+ 51. Kf2 Bf7 52. Be2 Ra3
> 53. Bf3
> Ra2+ 54. Kg3 Ra3 55. Kg2 Ra2+ 56. Kh3 Rd2 57. Rc7 Rd3 58. Kg2 Ra3 59.
> Kf2 Ra4
> 60. Kg3 Ra3 61. Rd7 Bc4 62. Kf2 Rd3 63. Rc7 Bf7 64. Rc1 Ra3 65. Rd1
> Ra2+ 66.
> Kg3 Ra3 67. Rd4 Ke5 68. Rd8 Rb3 69. Rd1 Bc4 70. Re1+ Kf6 71. Kf2 Rb2+
> 72. Kg1
> Rb3 73. Rc1 Bd3 74. Rc8 Rb4 75. Kf2 Rf4 76. Rc6+ Ke5 77. Rc5+ Kf6 78.
> Ke3 Bxf5
> 79. gxf5 Rxf5 80. Rc6+ Kg7 81. Be4 Rf6 82. Rc7+ Rf7 83. Rc5 Kf6 84.
> Rc6+ Ke5
> 85. Rg6 Ra7 86. Rxg5+ Kd6 87. Rd5+ Ke6 88. Rf5 Ra3+ 89. Kf4 Ra7 90.
> Rc5 Rd7 91.
> Ke3 Kd6 92. Ra5 Rd8 93. Bd5 Ke5 94. Bc4+ Kf6 95. Ke4 Rf8 96. Rc5 Kg6
> 97. Bd3
> Rd8 98. Rc6+ Kg5 99. Ke3 Rg8 100. Be4 Rg7 101. Rc5+ Kg4 102. Rf5 Ra7
> 103. Rf6
> Rg7 104. Rf1 Kg5 105. Rf5+ Kg4 106. Rb5 Rf7 107. Rb6 Rg7 108. Rb1 Kg5
> 109. Rb5+
> Kg4 110. Bf3+ Kg3 111. Rb4 Re7+ 112. Be4 Kg4 113. Rb2 Kg5 114. Rg2+
> Kf6 115.
> Kf4 Re6 116. Bf5 Rd6 117. Ke4 Rd1 118. Rg6+ Kf7 119. Ra6 Rb1 120. Be6+
> Ke7 121.
> Bd5 Rh1 122. Kd4 Rg1 123. Re6+ Kd7 124. Rb6 Ke7 125. Rb7+ Kd6 126. Bf3
> Rg5 127.
> Rb6+ Ke7 128. Ra6 Kf7 129. Be4 Kg7 130. Ra1 Rh5 131. Bf5 Rh4+ 132. Kd5
> Kf6 133.
> Bg4 Kf7 134. Kc6 Kf6 135. Rf1+ Ke7 136. Rf4 {50 moves rule} 1/2-1/2
>
> '
>
> [Event "Test_standard"]
> [Date "2008.02.10"]
> [Round "3"]
> [White "Rybkav2.3.2a.x64 [mainbk"]
> [Black "Rybkav2.3.2a.x64 [mainbk [001]"]
> [Result "1/2-1/2"]
> [ECO "D75"]
> [WhiteElo "3200"]
> [BlackElo "3200"]
> [PlyCount "300"]
> [TimeControl "5400"]
>
> 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 c5 6. Nc3 cxd4 7. Qxd4
> Nc6 8. Qf4
> Bc5!N 9. O-O O-O 10. Be3 Qe7 11. Rad1 Rab8 12. Ng5 Rfd8 13. b3 Bb4 14.
> Nb5 d5 15.
> cxd5 Nxd5 16. Bxd5 exd5 17. Nf3 Rbc8 18. Rc1 Bc5 19. Rfd1 a6 20. Nbd4
> Nxd4 21.
> Bxd4 f6 22. Bxc5 bxc5 23. Rc2 g5 24. Qd2 Qe4 25. Ne1 Kg7 26. Rdc1 c4
> 27. f3 Qe6
> 28. Rc3 Qb6+ 29. Kf1 a5 30. Nc2 a4 31. Nd4 cxb3 32. axb3 a3 33. Ra1
> Rxc3 34.
> Qxc3 Ra8 35. Ra2 h5 36. Qe3 Kf7 37. Qd3 Kf8 38. Nc2 Bc8 39. Qd4 Qc6
> 40. Kf2 Kg7
> 41. Qe3 g4 42. Qe7+ Kg6 43. Nd4 Qd7 44. Qc5 Qa7 45. Qxa7 Rxa7 46. Nb5
> Ra5 47.
> Nxa3 gxf3 48. exf3 d4 49. Ra1 Rc5 50. Nc4 Be6 51. Ra4 Rb5 52. Nd2 d3
> 53. Ke3
> Bxb3 54. Ra6 Bd5 55. Kxd3 Bb7 56. Rd6 Kf5 57. h4 Bd5 58. Ra6 Rb4 59.
> Ra5 Ke6
> 60. Ra7 Kf5 61. Ke3 Kg6 62. Rd7 Rb5 63. Ne4 Rb3+ 64. Kf4 Rd3 65. Ra7
> Rd4 66.
> Ke3 Rc4 67. Ra1 Bxe4 68. fxe4 Rb4 69. Rc1 Rb3+ 70. Kf4 Rb2 71. Rd1
> Rf2+ 72. Ke3
> Rb2 73. Kf3 Rb3+ 74. Kf4 Rb4 75. Ra1 Rb2 76. Rf1 Rb4 77. Rd1 Rb2 78.
> Ke3 Rb3+
> 79. Rd3 Rb2 80. Rd8 Rb3+ 81. Kf4 Rb1 82. Rg8+ Kf7 83. Ra8 Rf1+ 84. Ke3
> Re1+ 85.
> Kf3 Rb1 86. Ra7+ Kg6 87. Ra6 Rb3+ 88. Kf4 Rb1 89. Rd6 Kf7 90. Ke3 Re1+
> 91. Kf3
> Rf1+ 92. Kg2 Re1 93. Rd7+ Kg6 94. Kf3 Rf1+ 95. Ke2 Rb1 96. Rd5 Rb3 97.
> Rd3 Rb1
> 98. Rd7 Rb3 99. Rd8 Kf7 100. Rd3 Rb5 101. Kf3 Kg6 102. Rd5 Rb3+ 103.
> Kf4 Rb1
> 104. Ra5 Rf1+ 105. Ke3 Rg1 106. Kf2 Rb1 107. Ra8 Rb3 108. Rh8 Ra3 109.
> Rb8 Kf7
> 110. Rb7+ Kg6 111. Rb5 Rd3 112. Ra5 Rd4 113. Ke3 Rd1 114. Kf3 Rd3+
> 115. Kf4 Rd1
> 116. e5 Rf1+ 117. Ke3 Re1+ 118. Kd4 Rd1+ 119. Kc4 Rg1 120. Ra6 Kf5
> 121. exf6
> Kg6 122. Ra8 Kf7 123. Ra3 Kxf6 124. Rf3+ Ke5 125. Kd3 Rb1 126. Ke3
> Rb3+ 127.
> Ke2 Rb2+ 128. Kf1 Ke4 129. Rf2 Rb5 130. Kg2 Ke5 131. Rc2 Kf6 132. Rc4
> Rb3 133.
> Rc6+ Kg7 134. Rc5 Kg6 135. Rg5+ Kh6 136. Re5 Kg6 137. Kf2 Ra3 138.
> Rg5+ Kh6
> 139. Rd5 Kg6 140. Rd6+ Kf7 141. Kg2 Rc3 142. Rd5 Kg6 143. Rg5+ Kh6
> 144. Rb5 Kg6
> 145. Rd5 Ra3 146. Rg5+ Kh6 147. Re5 Kg6 148. Re6+ Kf7 149. Rc6 Rb3
> 150. Ra6 Rc3
> {1/2-1/2 Arena Adjudication} 1/2-1/2
>
> [Event "Test_long games"]
> [Date "2008.02.08"]
> [Round "13"]
> [White "Rybkav2.3.2a.x64 [mainbk"]
> [Black "Rybkav2.3.2a.x64 [mainbk [001]"]
> [Result "1/2-1/2"]
> [ECO "C92"]
> [WhiteElo "3200"]
> [BlackElo "3200"]
> [PlyCount "153"]
> [TimeControl "5400"]
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3
> d6 8. c3
> O-O 9. h3 Bb7 10. d4 Re8 11. Nbd2 Bf8 12. a4 h6 13. d5 Nb8 14. c4 bxc4
> 15. Bxc4
> a5 16. Bb5 c6 17. dxc6 Nxc6 18. Nc4 Re6 19. Bd2 Ne7 20. Qc2 Bxe4 21.
> Rxe4 Nxe4
> 22. Bxa5 Rxa5 23. Nxa5 d5 24. Nc4 Ng6 25. Ne3 Bc5 26. Rd1 Bxe3 27.
> fxe3 Qb6 28.
> Re1 Qa5 29. Qc8+ Kh7 30. Qc1 f5 31. Qb1 Qb4 32. Rd1 Qd6 33. Qc2 Qb6
> 34. Re1 Nd6
> 35. b4 Re7 36. Qc6 Rb7 37. a5 Qxb5 38. Qxd6 Qxb4 39. Qxb4 Rxb4 40. Ra1
> Rb7 41.
> h4 h5 42. Rc1 Ra7 43. Rc5 e4 44. Ng5+ Kh6 45. g3 Ne7 46. Rb5 Ng8 47.
> Rxd5 g6
> 48. Rc5 Nf6 49. Kf1 Nd7 50. Rd5 Kg7 51. Ne6+ Kf7 52. Nd8+ Ke8 53. Nc6
> Ra6 54.
> Rd6 Kf8 55. Kg2 Nc5 56. Rxg6 Nb3 57. Re6 Nd2 58. Nd4 Rxa5 59. Rf6+ Kg7
> 60. Rxf5
> Rxf5 61. Nxf5+ Kf6 62. Nd4 Nc4 63. Kf2 Nb2 64. Ke2 Nc4 65. Nb5 Kf5 66.
> Kf2 Kg4
> 67. Nc3 Nxe3 68. Kxe3 Kxg3 69. Kxe4 Kxh4 70. Kf4 Kh3 71. Kf3 Kh4 72.
> Ne4 Kh3
> 73. Ng5+ Kh4 74. Nh7 Kh3 75. Nf6 Kh4 76. Kf4 Kh3 77. Nxh5 {
> Insufficient material} 1/2-1/2
You are proving that players with equal ratings draw each other.
What's the surprise that a computer, playing itself with the same
evaluation functions, draws?
|
| |
Date: 10 Feb 2008 10:44:26
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
> well i tried to log-in but with difficulties; first
> the email with your verification code was blocked
> by the spam filter of my server, but with web mail i
> managed to find it. Second, after filling in the verification
> code i got a new page saying 'page not found'.
> anyway, logging in another time solved that problem,
> (PS the board appears a to be a bit small,
> no not the analysis board, thats very big..)
Are you still facing any problem in playing? Ask you spam filter to
allow mails from that email. Can you send me the details why the Spam
Filter Stopped the mail? What was the reasion for filtering it.
What is your webserver name and which filter do you use?
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 10 Feb 2008 06:35:51
From: jefk
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
below some drawn endgames with standard time control
(5 man egtb), dual core AMD4200x64
(in first two games you see 50 move rule,
thereafter insufficient material to mate),
some clear examples of the drawish nature of chess
(black didnt play 100 % perfect yet, lets say 99.8 % perfect,
white got a small advantage at least in the Rybka score,
but obviously couldnt win in the endgames(s) :
[Event "Test_long games"]
[Date "2008.02.09"]
[Round "24"]
[White "Rybkav2.3.2a.x64 [mainbk [001]"]
[Black "Rybkav2.3.2a.x64 [mainbk"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C94"]
[WhiteElo "3200"]
[BlackElo "3200"]
[PlyCount "271"]
[TimeControl "5400"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3
d6 8. c3
O-O 9. h3 Nb8 10. d3 Nbd7 11. Nbd2 Bb7 12. Nf1 Nc5 13. Bc2 Re8 14. Be3
Bf8 15.
Ng3 g6 16. b4 Ne6 17. a4 Bg7 18. Bb3 Qe7 19. Qd2 Qd7 20. Qc2 Rec8 21.
d4 exd4
22. cxd4 d5 23. e5 Ne4 24. Nxe4 dxe4 25. Ng5 Nxg5 26. Bxg5 Bf8 27.
Rxe4 Qf5 28.
Rg4 Qxc2 29. Bxc2 Bxb4 30. axb5 axb5 31. Rb1 h5 32. Rg3 c5 33. e6 Ra6
34. Bf4
Kf8 35. exf7 Kxf7 36. Rg5 Ba8 37. Rd1 c4 38. Rxb5 Bd6 39. Bxd6 Rxd6
40. d5 c3
41. f4 Kf6 42. Kf2 Rcd8 43. Be4 c2 44. Bxc2 Bxd5 45. g4 hxg4 46. hxg4
g5 47. f5
Bc4 48. Rc5 Rd2+ 49. Kg3 Rxd1 50. Bxd1 Rd3+ 51. Kf2 Bf7 52. Be2 Ra3
53. Bf3
Ra2+ 54. Kg3 Ra3 55. Kg2 Ra2+ 56. Kh3 Rd2 57. Rc7 Rd3 58. Kg2 Ra3 59.
Kf2 Ra4
60. Kg3 Ra3 61. Rd7 Bc4 62. Kf2 Rd3 63. Rc7 Bf7 64. Rc1 Ra3 65. Rd1
Ra2+ 66.
Kg3 Ra3 67. Rd4 Ke5 68. Rd8 Rb3 69. Rd1 Bc4 70. Re1+ Kf6 71. Kf2 Rb2+
72. Kg1
Rb3 73. Rc1 Bd3 74. Rc8 Rb4 75. Kf2 Rf4 76. Rc6+ Ke5 77. Rc5+ Kf6 78.
Ke3 Bxf5
79. gxf5 Rxf5 80. Rc6+ Kg7 81. Be4 Rf6 82. Rc7+ Rf7 83. Rc5 Kf6 84.
Rc6+ Ke5
85. Rg6 Ra7 86. Rxg5+ Kd6 87. Rd5+ Ke6 88. Rf5 Ra3+ 89. Kf4 Ra7 90.
Rc5 Rd7 91.
Ke3 Kd6 92. Ra5 Rd8 93. Bd5 Ke5 94. Bc4+ Kf6 95. Ke4 Rf8 96. Rc5 Kg6
97. Bd3
Rd8 98. Rc6+ Kg5 99. Ke3 Rg8 100. Be4 Rg7 101. Rc5+ Kg4 102. Rf5 Ra7
103. Rf6
Rg7 104. Rf1 Kg5 105. Rf5+ Kg4 106. Rb5 Rf7 107. Rb6 Rg7 108. Rb1 Kg5
109. Rb5+
Kg4 110. Bf3+ Kg3 111. Rb4 Re7+ 112. Be4 Kg4 113. Rb2 Kg5 114. Rg2+
Kf6 115.
Kf4 Re6 116. Bf5 Rd6 117. Ke4 Rd1 118. Rg6+ Kf7 119. Ra6 Rb1 120. Be6+
Ke7 121.
Bd5 Rh1 122. Kd4 Rg1 123. Re6+ Kd7 124. Rb6 Ke7 125. Rb7+ Kd6 126. Bf3
Rg5 127.
Rb6+ Ke7 128. Ra6 Kf7 129. Be4 Kg7 130. Ra1 Rh5 131. Bf5 Rh4+ 132. Kd5
Kf6 133.
Bg4 Kf7 134. Kc6 Kf6 135. Rf1+ Ke7 136. Rf4 {50 moves rule} 1/2-1/2
'
[Event "Test_standard"]
[Date "2008.02.10"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Rybkav2.3.2a.x64 [mainbk"]
[Black "Rybkav2.3.2a.x64 [mainbk [001]"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D75"]
[WhiteElo "3200"]
[BlackElo "3200"]
[PlyCount "300"]
[TimeControl "5400"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 c5 6. Nc3 cxd4 7. Qxd4
Nc6 8. Qf4
Bc5!N 9. O-O O-O 10. Be3 Qe7 11. Rad1 Rab8 12. Ng5 Rfd8 13. b3 Bb4 14.
Nb5 d5 15.
cxd5 Nxd5 16. Bxd5 exd5 17. Nf3 Rbc8 18. Rc1 Bc5 19. Rfd1 a6 20. Nbd4
Nxd4 21.
Bxd4 f6 22. Bxc5 bxc5 23. Rc2 g5 24. Qd2 Qe4 25. Ne1 Kg7 26. Rdc1 c4
27. f3 Qe6
28. Rc3 Qb6+ 29. Kf1 a5 30. Nc2 a4 31. Nd4 cxb3 32. axb3 a3 33. Ra1
Rxc3 34.
Qxc3 Ra8 35. Ra2 h5 36. Qe3 Kf7 37. Qd3 Kf8 38. Nc2 Bc8 39. Qd4 Qc6
40. Kf2 Kg7
41. Qe3 g4 42. Qe7+ Kg6 43. Nd4 Qd7 44. Qc5 Qa7 45. Qxa7 Rxa7 46. Nb5
Ra5 47.
Nxa3 gxf3 48. exf3 d4 49. Ra1 Rc5 50. Nc4 Be6 51. Ra4 Rb5 52. Nd2 d3
53. Ke3
Bxb3 54. Ra6 Bd5 55. Kxd3 Bb7 56. Rd6 Kf5 57. h4 Bd5 58. Ra6 Rb4 59.
Ra5 Ke6
60. Ra7 Kf5 61. Ke3 Kg6 62. Rd7 Rb5 63. Ne4 Rb3+ 64. Kf4 Rd3 65. Ra7
Rd4 66.
Ke3 Rc4 67. Ra1 Bxe4 68. fxe4 Rb4 69. Rc1 Rb3+ 70. Kf4 Rb2 71. Rd1
Rf2+ 72. Ke3
Rb2 73. Kf3 Rb3+ 74. Kf4 Rb4 75. Ra1 Rb2 76. Rf1 Rb4 77. Rd1 Rb2 78.
Ke3 Rb3+
79. Rd3 Rb2 80. Rd8 Rb3+ 81. Kf4 Rb1 82. Rg8+ Kf7 83. Ra8 Rf1+ 84. Ke3
Re1+ 85.
Kf3 Rb1 86. Ra7+ Kg6 87. Ra6 Rb3+ 88. Kf4 Rb1 89. Rd6 Kf7 90. Ke3 Re1+
91. Kf3
Rf1+ 92. Kg2 Re1 93. Rd7+ Kg6 94. Kf3 Rf1+ 95. Ke2 Rb1 96. Rd5 Rb3 97.
Rd3 Rb1
98. Rd7 Rb3 99. Rd8 Kf7 100. Rd3 Rb5 101. Kf3 Kg6 102. Rd5 Rb3+ 103.
Kf4 Rb1
104. Ra5 Rf1+ 105. Ke3 Rg1 106. Kf2 Rb1 107. Ra8 Rb3 108. Rh8 Ra3 109.
Rb8 Kf7
110. Rb7+ Kg6 111. Rb5 Rd3 112. Ra5 Rd4 113. Ke3 Rd1 114. Kf3 Rd3+
115. Kf4 Rd1
116. e5 Rf1+ 117. Ke3 Re1+ 118. Kd4 Rd1+ 119. Kc4 Rg1 120. Ra6 Kf5
121. exf6
Kg6 122. Ra8 Kf7 123. Ra3 Kxf6 124. Rf3+ Ke5 125. Kd3 Rb1 126. Ke3
Rb3+ 127.
Ke2 Rb2+ 128. Kf1 Ke4 129. Rf2 Rb5 130. Kg2 Ke5 131. Rc2 Kf6 132. Rc4
Rb3 133.
Rc6+ Kg7 134. Rc5 Kg6 135. Rg5+ Kh6 136. Re5 Kg6 137. Kf2 Ra3 138.
Rg5+ Kh6
139. Rd5 Kg6 140. Rd6+ Kf7 141. Kg2 Rc3 142. Rd5 Kg6 143. Rg5+ Kh6
144. Rb5 Kg6
145. Rd5 Ra3 146. Rg5+ Kh6 147. Re5 Kg6 148. Re6+ Kf7 149. Rc6 Rb3
150. Ra6 Rc3
{1/2-1/2 Arena Adjudication} 1/2-1/2
[Event "Test_long games"]
[Date "2008.02.08"]
[Round "13"]
[White "Rybkav2.3.2a.x64 [mainbk"]
[Black "Rybkav2.3.2a.x64 [mainbk [001]"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C92"]
[WhiteElo "3200"]
[BlackElo "3200"]
[PlyCount "153"]
[TimeControl "5400"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3
d6 8. c3
O-O 9. h3 Bb7 10. d4 Re8 11. Nbd2 Bf8 12. a4 h6 13. d5 Nb8 14. c4 bxc4
15. Bxc4
a5 16. Bb5 c6 17. dxc6 Nxc6 18. Nc4 Re6 19. Bd2 Ne7 20. Qc2 Bxe4 21.
Rxe4 Nxe4
22. Bxa5 Rxa5 23. Nxa5 d5 24. Nc4 Ng6 25. Ne3 Bc5 26. Rd1 Bxe3 27.
fxe3 Qb6 28.
Re1 Qa5 29. Qc8+ Kh7 30. Qc1 f5 31. Qb1 Qb4 32. Rd1 Qd6 33. Qc2 Qb6
34. Re1 Nd6
35. b4 Re7 36. Qc6 Rb7 37. a5 Qxb5 38. Qxd6 Qxb4 39. Qxb4 Rxb4 40. Ra1
Rb7 41.
h4 h5 42. Rc1 Ra7 43. Rc5 e4 44. Ng5+ Kh6 45. g3 Ne7 46. Rb5 Ng8 47.
Rxd5 g6
48. Rc5 Nf6 49. Kf1 Nd7 50. Rd5 Kg7 51. Ne6+ Kf7 52. Nd8+ Ke8 53. Nc6
Ra6 54.
Rd6 Kf8 55. Kg2 Nc5 56. Rxg6 Nb3 57. Re6 Nd2 58. Nd4 Rxa5 59. Rf6+ Kg7
60. Rxf5
Rxf5 61. Nxf5+ Kf6 62. Nd4 Nc4 63. Kf2 Nb2 64. Ke2 Nc4 65. Nb5 Kf5 66.
Kf2 Kg4
67. Nc3 Nxe3 68. Kxe3 Kxg3 69. Kxe4 Kxh4 70. Kf4 Kh3 71. Kf3 Kh4 72.
Ne4 Kh3
73. Ng5+ Kh4 74. Nh7 Kh3 75. Nf6 Kh4 76. Kf4 Kh3 77. Nxh5 {
Insufficient material} 1/2-1/2
|
| |
Date: 10 Feb 2008 06:25:26
From: jefk
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
On Feb 10, 7:47 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> I think Master Level at GetClub will play much like perfect game.
well there's an important element that's not implemented yet,
i've seen that's important the 3 times draw-repitition rule.
after you've implemented that you could try to compare
the program with commercial programs, and let
it play faster at master level (a Russian program Ufim
in fact has been programmed to play slower at easy
/medium levels, ie wait a few more seconds before moving
to simulate longer 'thinking' of the computer opponent
> Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
well i tried to log-in but with difficulties; first
the email with your verification code was blocked
by the spam filter of my server, but with web mail i
managed to find it. Second, after filling in the verification
code i got a new page saying 'page not found'.
anyway, logging in another time solved that problem,
(PS the board appears a to be a bit small,
no not the analysis board, thats very big..)
the about chess=draw again:
> MATHEMATICAL PROOF BY INDUCTION
> So as the Game players strength increases the loss after X moves
> reduces. So by Induction as the strength of player playing Chess
> increases the loss of piece -> 0 and number of moves after which a
> pawn is killed -> INFINITE.
>
> And we know because of 50 move rule a Chess game cannot exceed 4800
> Moves. So we can conclude a Perfect player will always get Chess to
> draw.
well i'm not sure whether this 'proof' will be up to rigorous
mathematical
standards, probably not, as it's not socalled 'complete induction'
(Pascal) (if chess is draw for move N=1, assume chess is a draw at
move N (eg.59 or 3314..; now can we then 'prove' that it's also a draw
at
move N+1; if yes, then its proven by complete induction); anyway
reasoning along such standards, would be a better way to go i presume
than proof by a brute force search (although i've already done
something like that for the opening stage up to eg. move 25)
But who cares, for example you can prove the ''ideal gas law''
PV=RT by deriving it from the statistical molecule laws by
Boltzmann; an interesting mathematical exercise, but you
can also derive the law from experiment (although then it
appears reality is not behaving completely in line with the
mathematics, because of some other effect (non-ideal gas law).
In general induction in physics leads to a strong hypothesis,
which people can try to falsify; in mathematics its called
a conjecture, eg. before Fermats theorem a^N+b^N=c^N
(with N integer, only true for N <3) was proven by Wiley
it was already known to be true for different values of N,
and the conjecture was that is was true. Similar apparently
that checkers was known to be a draw as David Kane posted.
For chess in mathematical language it's also at least a
conjecture that its a draw, which is not placing the burdon
of proof on me, but on others imho, ie either to find
a rigorous proof in terms of complete induction simultaneous
applying also the chess rules (eg 3 times draw rule),
or, trying to falsify the meta-abstract empirical finding
that chess is a draw by showing winning lines for white
against every black defence possible, eg using
a quantum computer (well forget it i would say, there
are better ways to use computing power)
As for your 'induction' using the 50 move draw rule,
(didnt now that max length in chess is 4800 moves but
this indeed is another indication of its drawish nature),
in a next posting i can show two examples of the
50 moves rules, where black didn't even play 100% perfect
yet i.e white managed to get a small advantage
(which i corrected by introducing novelties for black)
but anyway in these games white's advantage already
wasnt enough to lead it to a win..
jef
|
| |
Date: 09 Feb 2008 22:47:38
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
> > jefk>to show thatchessis a draw (it is, btw).
>
> > Liar.
>
> so if worldchesschampion Anand claimschessis
> a draw, he is a liar ?
> Surechesscan be a dynamic game sometimes,
> whereby the comp evaluation gradually is changing,
> but by playing rybka-rybka standard =A0game, not only opening
> theory is improved , but the better it gets, the more drawish
> the game seems to become.
You are correct the Perfect game will be draw.
Say White first move.
A bad player will play a move Which looses its queen after 10 moves.
A little good player will play a move so that his pawn gets killed
after 10 moves.
A Beginner Level at GetClub will play So that a pwn is lost in 15
moves.
Master Level will play a bad move So that a pawn in lost after 30
Moves.
MATHEMATICAL PROOF BY INDUCTION
So as the Game players strength increases the loss after X moves
reduces. So by Induction as the strength of player playing Chess
increases the loss of piece - > 0 and number of moves after which a
pawn is killed - > INFINITE.
And we know because of 50 move rule a Chess game cannot exceed 4800
Moves. So we can conclude a Perfect player will always get Chess to
draw.
I think Master Level at GetClub will play much like perfect game.
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 09 Feb 2008 12:04:10
From: jefk
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??/ a drawish example
|
ok,
as i probably will get some reactions again, here's
an example with a drawish line, and a but not spectacular
little novelty, at move 23; the black 16th move
is more important, but i suspect only people
who understand a lot of chess are able to
see the siginificance of this, and then maybe
as well for the drawish nature of chess(*)
[Event "Test_long games"]
[Site "PC_JEFK"]
[Date "2008.02.08"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Rybkav2.3.2a.x64 [mainbk [001]"]
[Black "Rybkav2.3.2a.x64 [mainbk"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C92"]
[WhiteElo "3200"]
[BlackElo "3200"]
[PlyCount "84"]
[TimeControl "5400"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3
d6 8. c3
O-O 9. h3 Bb7 10. d4 Re8 11. Nbd2 Bf8 12. a4 h6 13. Bc2 exd4 14. cxd4
Nb4 15.
Bb1 c5 16. d5 g6!? { in what usually is considered the mainline of the
Zaitsev
black plays Nd7?!, after which white is thought to have a slight
advantage
after 17Ra3!? (but after analyzing 17..g6 -a move often disregarded-
this is
not the case)} 17. Nf1 Bg7 18. axb5 axb5 19. Rxa8 Qxa8 20. Bf4 {in
conventional
opening theory for the Zaitsev this was considered an advantage for
white,
based on two (human) games Gruenfeld(2459) played in 1984, but his
opponents
then failed to see the response Qd8! better way to protect the pawn on
d6 then
Qa6?} Qd8! {in Vroom (2200)- Demyak (2205), 1/2-1/2 white played 21
Qd2 ,
but Ng3 seems better} 21. Ng3 {!N} h5 22. Re3 Nd7 23. Bxd6 Bxb2 24.
Rb3 Bg7 25.
Bxc5 Nxc5 26. Rxb4 Qa5 27. Qd2 Na6 28. Rb3 Qxd2 29. Nxd2 b4 30. Re3 h4
31. Ngf1
Nc5 32. Nb3 Na4 33. Bd3 Nc3 34. g4 Bh6 35. Rf3 Ba8 36. Nc5 Rc8 37. Nb3
Nxd5 38.
exd5 Bxd5 39. Ba6 Ra8 40. Rd3 Bxb3 41. Rxb3 Rxa6 42. Rxb4 {rook+knight
with 3
pawns on kingside, vs rook+bishop on kingside, an obvious draw.} f6
{
1/2-1/2 User Adjudication} 1/2-1/2
jef
PS of course i have many more examples against 1.e4 e5!
And of course i've also looked at eg. Scottish, Italian, etc.
For (ie against) 1.d4 i'll might give some example later on
the (obvious more mature) forum icdchess.com
No need to look at Sicilian or Petrov, as with the
Ruy Lopez, especially the Zaitsev,l black seems to be fine.
(*) PS2 some may say that a few examples doesnt mean
anything, but what i've found is that in the middle game, just
because of the 'exponential growth' of the nr of possible playable
positions, in case of white winning line, black always can
manage to find another option to avoid such a white win.
If you don't believe it, you might try it, but its a lot of work,
and unless you wouldnt like to re-write the complete
Yugoslavian ECO/Encyclopedia of chess openings
and wouldnt really recommend it.. (cheers)
|
| |
Date: 09 Feb 2008 11:00:47
From: jefk
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
On Feb 7, 11:01 am, NOSPAM <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> jefk>to show that chess is a draw (it is, btw).
>
> Liar.
so if world chess champion Anand claims chess is
a draw, he is a liar ?
Sure chess can be a dynamic game sometimes,
whereby the comp evaluation gradually is changing,
but by playing rybka-rybka standard game, not only opening
theory is improved , but the better it gets, the more drawish
the game seems to become.
who cares about a mathematical proof; can you
eg prove the Newtonion law action = minus reaction ?
scientific progress consists of paradigm shifts..
By claiming that chess still could be solved in the sense that its
a win for white, people are defying centuries of chess theory
whereby it's known that long succesful combinations
usually only can be made after sufficient positional
advantage has been built up. saying that a move as eg.
1 f3 *could* be the winning move simply is ridiculous
and that black could also be winning is even more crazy
>
> Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, loser.
easy to resort to name calling when your posting anonymously,
isnt it; haven't they told you sometimes you got bad manners ?
(an American i presume; but even worse, you probably
cannot play chess at all, judging from your posting)
> Then don't make claims of a mathematical/logical
> nature that you can't prove.
well i dont have to; i'm a physicist, and draw my
conclusions from empirical facts. i've played *many*
slow comp-comp blitz games on a fast comp, analyzed
in detail the resulting book/database, also played
and investigated full length standard comp-comp games
with novelties, at least for the most drawish book lines..
anyway, i might be back a few months later on the
more decent icdchess forum, instead of this usenet,
and hopefully with some examples, and/or more
arguments to support my empirical 'hunch' that chess is a
draw; until then, others (feel free to try) can of course try to
falsify this by finding winning lines for white
against any possible defence for black..
good luck..
PS according to 'philosopher' P.Feyerabend Galileo Galilei
has not really 'proven' that the earth is revolving around
the sun (well it does, doesn it; any mathematical solution
or hypothesis describing real world eg with Newtonian mechanics
should be a simple as possible; you always extend it later
with general relativity, but thats makes not much difference )
Also according to this 'philosopher' astrology and witchcraft
are just as valid thought systems as mainstream science.
well i wonder then how this bloke got his degree..
|
| |
Date: 08 Feb 2008 06:37:54
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Master Level/ Advance Level will play perfect.
|
> >GetClubGame is made just to win against Human Players, I have no
> > motive of =A0having it play with other Commercial programs. As it is
> > made just for fun and not for competing with other CommercialChess
> > Programs.
>
> =A0 Good. =A0Because you would lose. =A0Badly.
>
> =A0 -- help bot
Today again the GetClub Chess program was improved. So you will find
it playing much better than earlier.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 06 Feb 2008 19:31:43
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Master Level/ Advance Level will play perfect.
|
On Feb 5, 2:24 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Sanny, you already have oodles of information showing that your
> > program plays nowhere near perfectly on any of its levels. It is poor-
> > to-mediocre at best, atrocious at worst. You are quite clearly NOT
> > correct.
Time for a reality check. The program is now
so strong that in one game, I racked up over
ninety moves before finally prevailing!
> > So, you are either a liar or a fool. Which is it?
Why not both?
> I think you have a bit Problem in understanding things. I am neither
> liar nor a fool. You are doing unnecesary arguments on a thing that do
> not matter much.
Ridiculous! What on Earth could possibly be
more important than chess strength and chess
ratings? (Feeding the hungry? World peace?
Puleeeeeeze.)
> If you had beaten Master Level then it does not mean it cannot improve
> further . It is improving every week. Earlier everyone used to play
> with Master level and Win. Now most of them are playing with Beginner
> & Easy Level. Why? The time taken by Master has dropped down from
> earlier 1 hour to 10 Minutes now. Still people are not willing to play
> with Master level as they are afraid of loosing the game.
>
> Now I find many games where Beginner Level has Won. And I find that
> everyones rating is going down.
Bingo! Everyone not using a superior program
will have a tougher and tougher time of it, and
the result will be a narrowing in the gap between
GetClub's various levels and the human players.
Of course, there will always be a few who RUN!
> If the improvement continues as before the day is not far when It will
> play as good as Crafty/ Fritz/ Rybka and other Strong Chess Programs.
Whoa there, fella! There is a huge difference
between besting average human players and
competing toe-to-toe with the Kings of chess;
some of those programs are impossible to
compete against, using your slow Java applet
approach.
> GetClub Game is made just to win against Human Players, I have no
> motive of having it play with other Commercial programs. As it is
> made just for fun and not for competing with other Commercial Chess
> Programs.
Good. Because you would lose. Badly.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
|
| |
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? /perfect play
|
|
| | |
Date: 06 Feb 2008 13:31:57
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? /perfect play
|
tin Brown <
|
| |
Date: 05 Feb 2008 23:40:44
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
Sanny wrote:
>How these Quantum Computer work and how we will program them. I
>suppose it is a Parralel Computer?
Look here:
http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/
http://www.google.com/search?q=quantum+computer
I hope this helps.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
| |
Date: 05 Feb 2008 09:45:22
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
On Feb 5, 10:41 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
>
> tin Brown wrote:
> >The number of positions that needs to be considered is still far beyond
> >anything that a conventional computer can do now or in the future. If
> >someone gets a quantum computer to run achessprogram all bets are off,
> >but until that day the best we can say is that it might be a draw.
>
> IBM has a 7-Qbit Quantum Computer that uses Shor's algorithm to
> factor the number 15 into 3 and 5. D-Wave Systems claims to have
> a working 28-Qbit Quantum Computer, but I have my doubts. Quantum
> computers are hard to scale up. There are problems keeping the
> Qbits stable long enough to finish the calculation, and as you
> add more qubits, the problem gets worse. So we aren't there yet
> and may never get there.
>
> --
> Guy Macon
> <http://www.guymacon.com/>
How these Quantum Computer work and how we will program them. I
suppose it is a Parralel Computer?
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 05 Feb 2008 17:41:04
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit
tin Brown wrote:
>The number of positions that needs to be considered is still far beyond
>anything that a conventional computer can do now or in the future. If
>someone gets a quantum computer to run a chess program all bets are off,
>but until that day the best we can say is that it might be a draw.
IBM has a 7-Qbit Quantum Computer that uses Shor�s algorithm to
factor the number 15 into 3 and 5. D-Wave Systems claims to have
a working 28-Qbit Quantum Computer, but I have my doubts. Quantum
computers are hard to scale up. There are problems keeping the
Qbits stable long enough to finish the calculation, and as you
add more qubits, the problem gets worse. So we aren't there yet
and may never get there.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
| |
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
|
| | |
Date: 06 Feb 2008 12:44:28
From: jefk
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? /perfect play
|
tin Brown wrote:
>
> It is plausible, but it could equally be a first player win.
>
ok, another thought experiment, also to backup my quasi empirical hunch
that the more complicated a symmetrical game, the more likely
the outcome of perfect play would be a draw; otherwise there's
something wrong with the rules, anyway:
lets have a look a soccer; soccer ?? yep, soccer :)
does it matter which side has the first kick ? nope,
most likely not, it's a long game, 3 hours, and
the chances will equalize. Now here's a prediction of the
outcome in case of perfect play : 0-0 !
'ultra weak solution':
in case of perfect play, the defence should also be perfect,
and -most importantly- also the keeper, in fact, being a
very tall and fast guy (or robot ?) he will not let pass
through any ball, so there will never be a goal made.
Its probably not so difficult to make such a keeper robot
from eg. military technology (think about patriot missiles).
And then we also have the FIFA off-side rule.
Offside rule ? Yep, offside rule, just like the 50 move
FIDE endgame rule :-)) (maybe irrelevant,
but yet another argument to support a claim)
Now you could say such a goalkeeper robot would spoil the
game, in case of permanent draws, but thats not the point.
THe point is that it would be foolish to think about
22 robo-players, and generate a database -or generate
trillions of simulations- to 'prove' that the game would
be 0-0, when this already is obvious from empirical facts.
In chess, i'm convinced that in coming years we will
see more draws in computer-computer games,
and gradually the computer chess community
will see that chess is a draw. Except those
who are member of the flat earth society maybe
:)
jef
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2008 13:13:16
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? /perfect play
|
jefk <[email protected] > wrote:
> ok, another thought experiment, also to backup my quasi empirical
> hunch that the more complicated a symmetrical game, the more likely
> the outcome of perfect play would be a draw; otherwise there's
> something wrong with the rules, anyway:
>
> lets have a look a soccer; soccer ?? yep, soccer :)
1. Obviously, a perfect defence would never concede a goal. Equally
obviously, a perfect attack would never fail to score once it had the
ball. This contradiction immediately shows that there's no such thing
as `perfect play' in soccer.
2. Your argument didn't involve chess at all but your conclusion did.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Permanent Moistened Drink (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a refreshing juice beverage
but it's moist and it'll be there
for ever!
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2008 14:30:48
From: jefk
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? /rules
|
David Richerby wrote:
> 2. Your argument didn't involve chess at all but your conclusion did.
>
well i mentioned some (speculative) thing which you guys overlooked,
namely that *if* the game would *not* be a draw, there must
be something wrong with the rules, so the rules then should be changed.
Whether its offside, endgame rule, or whatever.
I mean, robosoccer (and it exists, at least as table-robo-soccer)
wouldnt be fun if the side who starts would always win, isnt it.
Let's *assume* (speculative, yes) that the Fide adopted the
50 move endgame rule again to keep chess a draw (although
they also can't know that for sure, i agree); then in case that
they would be wrong, if eg. a certain David R would find
a win for white in 250 moves, then they simply could
make more strict rules, eg. making it a 30 move endgame
rule, and voila, chess would be a draw again.
(but no, i'm not gonna mail Ilmoesjinov :)
\
Reduction ad absurdum, yes, by changing the rules
as necessary to maintain an equal and honest thus
drawish game, so indeed not a perfect solution, but
you might see my point.
Do we then need to change the rules for
fur-in-a-row ? Yep, why not ?
But as simple as possible of course.
Anyway, glad to see some comon chess sense there
that you also suspect chess is a draw.
ok, i'll withdraw my statement that that is a 'solution'..
but i still predict we will see more draws after
some years, also with freestyle chess;(eg
if these guys abandon this bloody Najdorf variation
:)
best regards,
jef
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2008 15:48:54
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? /rules
|
jefk <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> 2. Your argument didn't involve chess at all but your conclusion did.
>
> well i mentioned some (speculative) thing which you guys overlooked,
> namely that *if* the game would *not* be a draw, there must be
> something wrong with the rules, so the rules then should be changed.
There are all kinds of games where draws are either very rare or
impossible. This in no way means that there's something wrong with
the rules of those games.
> Whether its offside, endgame rule, or whatever. I mean, robosoccer
> (and it exists, at least as table-robo-soccer) wouldnt be fun if the
> side who starts would always win, isnt it.
But this is completely irrelevant to chess.
> Let's *assume* (speculative, yes) that the Fide adopted the 50 move
> endgame rule again to keep chess a draw
No, let's not assume that. It's a stupid thing to assume.
> Reduction ad absurdum, yes
No, it isn't reductio ad absurdum. Reductio ad absurdum is proof by
contradiction: you assume the opposite of what you're trying to prove
and use that to prove a contradiction.
For example, I wished to prove that there was no such thing as
`perfect soccer'. So I assumed the opposite: that there is perfect
soccer. I then noted that a perfect attacker would always score but a
perfect defence would always prevent this. This is a contradiction,
which shows that the hypothesis that `perfect soccer' exists must be
false.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Disposable Watch (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ precision chronometer but you never
have to clean it!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2008 14:43:12
From: jefk
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? /rules
|
jefk wrote:
> necessary to maintain an equal and honest thus drawish game,
instead of 'honest' i meant *fair* of course,
a fair game between to sides should have
equal chances for both sides inho.
according to GM Adorjan the white statistical advantage
is based on psychological factors; i doubt that,
as its known that black has less choices, possible
moves to make in most -and especially sharp- positions.
So this is a problem in any tournament i would say,
don't know exactly how the Swiss rules are going,
but having seen some comp tourns in Leiden i suspect
the black/white side were equally rewarded in case of a win,
which is biased; a black win practically is more difficult,
at least nowadays, until they would use my nw book lines :)
also there is the well known GM draw problem,
where sometimes GM seem to have agreed
on beforehand to play for a draw.
Certain other counting systems/mehtods could change that,
but of course it would be better if the game inherently
already would be considered (or shown to be) drawish.
So imho its a useful thing that i'm trying to show this.
But feel free trying to solve it, i dont care\
bye
jef
|
| | |
Date: 05 Feb 2008 17:02:01
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
tin Brown <
|
| | |
Date: 05 Feb 2008 17:09:41
From: jefk
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
tin Brown wrote:
> Actually Rybka is fantastically strong at beating other engines, but
> deprived of its opening book I would not trust it navigate the
> intricacies of some openings without guidance from a human. Shredder
> and HIARCS seem to do better in this respect in the opening without a
> book.
yes, Rybka, tends to choose strange moves like 1.Nc3, or Nc6 after d4 d5
Nf3,
but the programmer could improve this later of course
>
> Who is to say that the perfect forced winning line for white does
> start with something completely absurd like: 1. h3
1. a3 looks better to me
> Only when we have a full depth search result can we be sure.
nope, same with checkers, they didnt use a full depth search
>>
>> claims that there are more positions in chess than atoms in the
>> univers.
> But that is correct. There are.
nah atoms, who cares, i claim there are more quarks
in the universe, than there are possible 'real' (originating
from legal moves) positions in chess..
'Proof': well, try to prove its not true,
otherwise i hold my claim :)
>
> Rybka tends to have a very flat evaluation of the initial opening
> phase of the game.
yes, but most importantly, the initial 'advantage' of white can not
be increased during the stage of opening theory.
on the contrary, with perfect play black will gradually
achieve an equal game
> Shredder and HIARCS tend to see more of the structure albeit in a
> slightly exaggerated way.
yes, but also in this case black can compensate the white initiative
>> To Solve Chess we need to search till atleast 100 depth.
that's *your* opinion, but with the endgame table bases
already a lot of endgame moves will be accounted for
> Cataloguing the opening tree within 50cp of equality might make an
> interesting net distributed computational project.
there seems to exist a project in this direction,
but lately unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much progress:
http://www.chessbrain.net/
regards,
jef
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2008 17:43:16
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
jefk wrote:
>i claim there are more quarks in the universe, than there
>are possible 'real' (originating from legal moves)
>positions in chess..
Feel free to post your calculations.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2008 17:03:21
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
jefk <[email protected] > wrote:
> yes, but most importantly, the initial 'advantage' of white can not
> be increased during the stage of opening theory. on the contrary,
> with perfect play black will gradually achieve an equal game
Objection. The witness is speculating.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Natural Impossible Goldfish (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a fish but it can't exist
and it's completely natural!
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2008 18:21:15
From: Andy Walker
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
In article <Pfp*[email protected] >,
David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote:
>jefk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> yes, but most importantly, the initial 'advantage' of white can not
>> be increased during the stage of opening theory. on the contrary,
>> with perfect play black will gradually achieve an equal game
>Objection. The witness is speculating.
Stronger objection. He is plain wrong. With perfect play,
(a) if chess is a draw then White has no initial advantage at all,
and Black already has an equal game; or
(b) if chess is a White win, then no play by Black can change that
[assuming that "perfect play" applies to both sides]; or
(c) if chess is [surprisingly] a Black win, then no play by White
can change that, and Black has a better-than-equal game.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2008 21:46:47
From: jefk
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
Andy Walker wrote:
> Stronger objection. He is plain wrong. With perfect play,
> (a) if chess is a draw then White has no initial advantage at all,
>
in principle, correct, but in practice moves like 1.e4 and 1.d4
have a small advantage, whereas moves like 1.Nh3, 1.f3, etc
have a disadvantage for white.
Also you (and Richerby) continuously are disregarding conventional
chess theory, where positional considerations/knowledge has grown
throughout centuries by chess masters like Steinitz, Nimzowitch,
and of course later the more modern super GM's.
Besides that we have accumulated knowledge in computer chess,
for example it's quite common of course to increase the value of a
pawn, the further it has progressed until the other side of
the board, threatening to change into a queen, or that a knight
should not be in a corner, but better somewhere in the center,
a simple concept of mobility.
Now from strict game theory you guys might be right to advocate a
black swan like a forced win for white, but complicated games like
chess and go (not even talking about life itself) are almost as complex
as a language imho, and maybe can better not be judged
only from a mathematical point of view (in this respect i agree with
Kasparov).
The limitations of a mathematical approach, whether its in complicated
mathematics/physics, life, physics, or maybe also in the area of
complicated
game theory (ie theory of complicated games, like eg 'Call of duty' (i
you know it),
depending on levels of course), are described for example in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-empiricism_in_mathematics
Now back to chess, i agree with Richerby that playing one game with
him would be any proof, so lets make another thought experiment: you
probably know about socalled the -quite modern- 'free style' computer
chess events, where come amateurs with strong computers/engines & extensive
opening theory were able to beat some GM's; well these events have
rigid time control, but if such an event would be organized with much
longer time controls, eg a free-style sort of correspondence chess
tournament
(similar to conventional correspondence chess where everything is allowed)
but then even with *longer* time controls (eg one week/move), then
after a few years it most likely will become all draws.. when these
guys forget about Sicilian againast e4 at least :)
Is that a proof, no of course not, strictly speaking in mathematical
terms its not, but its a matter of experience and knowledge
- do you know the books by Russian chess expert Shereshevsky
for example 'Mastering the endgame , in which he is discussing what type
of endgames result from various openings? ; (probably not, as they seem
to be sold out) well i have them both, and learned a lot from them.
Let me make an even stronger statement about chess, ie *without*
a 50 move endgame rule; even then i would doubt whether a win for white
could be possible, as after about 25 moves the initial -positional-
advantage
by white always can be compensated by black;imho. But *if* such
a win *would* be possible, its almost certain for me that such a perfect
game would be *very* long, hundres, maybe even thousands of moves..
So.. *with* the 50 move endgame rule, there's only one outcome: draw !
(a chess game with thousands of moves is not possible imho with
this rule, because of the -very sensible- 3-times repetition rule..)
QED..
:)
best regard,
jef
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2008 00:05:30
From: Andy Walker
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
In article <[email protected] >,
jefk <[email protected] > wrote:
>> Stronger objection. He is plain wrong. With perfect play,
>> (a) if chess is a draw then White has no initial advantage at all,
>in principle, correct, but in practice moves like 1.e4 and 1.d4
>have a small advantage, whereas moves like 1.Nh3, 1.f3, etc
>have a disadvantage for white.
With respect, *you* were the one who told us that with
*perfect play* Black could reduce White's initial advantage
gradually towards equality. Are you talking about perfect play
or about chess as played by humans?
>Also you (and Richerby) continuously are disregarding conventional
>chess theory, where positional considerations/knowledge has grown
>throughout centuries by chess masters like Steinitz, Nimzowitch,
>and of course later the more modern super GM's.
Of course we aren't. But there is a difference between a
game of chess where the players are human, whether beginners or
super-GMs, and one where they play "perfect" moves.
>Besides that we have accumulated knowledge in computer chess,
>for example it's quite common of course to increase the value of a
>pawn, the further it has progressed [...]
Of course. As imperfect players, we cannot hope to analyse
typical positions perfectly through to the final result, so we need
a short-hand substitute for this analysis. Positional play, the
theories of "small advantages", maxims about control of the centre,
about pushing passed pawns, about rooks belonging behind pawns,
about rooks being worth more than minor pieces, these are all ways
of sumising such substitutes. But with perfect play, a position
can only be won, drawn or lost; it can't be "slightly advantageous".
Nowadays, we see this in stark form in the ending. The use
of tablebases has enabled us to give definitive values -- "perfect
play" results -- to many endgame positions, so that recent books now
often use quite different conventions about the use of "?" and "!"
from the traditional.
>Now from strict game theory you guys might be right to advocate a
>black swan like a forced win for white, [...]
No-one here is "advocating" it; we simply can't rule it out
in the present state of knowledge. But there are no "minor wins" in
chess, only wins, draws and losses. However important a "slight"
advantage may be in practical play, it is of none whatsoever in the
theoretical analysis of a position.
>Now back to chess, i agree with Richerby that playing one game with
>him would be any proof, so lets make another thought experiment: you
>probably know about socalled the -quite modern- 'free style' computer
>chess events, where come amateurs with strong computers/engines & extensive
>opening theory were able to beat some GM's; well these events have
>rigid time control, but if such an event would be organized with much
>longer time controls, eg a free-style sort of correspondence chess
>tournament
>(similar to conventional correspondence chess where everything is allowed)
>but then even with *longer* time controls (eg one week/move), then
>after a few years it most likely will become all draws.. when these
>guys forget about Sicilian againast e4 at least :)
Unsupported claims again! It seems to me just as likely that
expert players backed by extended computer analysis will become ever
more adept at squeezing out wins from unpromising positions. To win
tournaments of this sort, players will have to take risks -- as they
do in super-GM tournaments today -- so that top players will tend to
steer towards unfathomable positions and away from clear draws, and
towards positions suited to their [and their computers'] talents.
But this has little to do with "perfect" play.
>Let me make an even stronger statement about chess, ie *without*
>a 50 move endgame rule; even then i would doubt whether a win for white
>could be possible, as after about 25 moves the initial -positional-
>advantage
>by white always can be compensated by black;imho. But *if* such
>a win *would* be possible, its almost certain for me that such a perfect
>game would be *very* long, hundres, maybe even thousands of moves..
Yet more unsupported claims. The endgame tablebases show
that in many relatively simple endings a win can be squeezed out in
a way that is utterly beyond human comprehension. In the longest
variations, the pieces seem to move at random, but the tablebase
assures us that *this* is the only way to win, *that* is the most
resistant move, and dozens or hundreds of moves later, all becomes
clear. Perhaps the initial position is in this same category, and
there is an incomprehensible compulsion behind Black's being snared
[with best play] into the loss of a pawn by move 47; or perhaps
the drawing gin really is quite wide. We won't know in the next
few decades; that's as sure as anything is ever sure ....
>So.. *with* the 50 move endgame rule, there's only one outcome: draw !
>(a chess game with thousands of moves is not possible imho with
>this rule, because of the -very sensible- 3-times repetition rule..)
>QED..
Well, it's certainly *possible*; GuyM of these groups has
several times posted evidence about what the longest game actually
is on the assumption that claimable draws are claimed. It seems
very likely that there is no *sensible* game with thousands of
moves, unless your measure of "sensible" is how long the players
can spin out a game without ever leaving the drawing gins.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2008 12:28:47
From: jefk
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
hello
Andy Walker wrote
> Of course we aren't. But there is a difference between a
> game of chess where the players are human, whether beginners or
> super-GMs, and one where they play "perfect" moves.
>
>
ok, i see your point, you (and Richerby) would like to have some 'proof'
like a 32 man table base, where immediately the perfect move is given;
well i can agree of course that i can't supply such 'proof' ..
nevertheless i've given many arguments why i believe (even convinced)
that chess is a draw, based on a lot of work/analysis. For example,
of course i didn't simply use Rybka in the early stages of the opening,
i main use it in deep lines, eg. >40ply, to find counterplans for black
(Rybka is not only tactical i think, but also often finds the right plan,
at least it seems to do exactly that, based on a positional knowledge).
Another thing why Rybka won so many tournaments, not only
because its engine, but also because of the Noomen book. He also
has done deep analysis, and i've seen his recent articles in the magazine
of the Dutch computer chess association (he also described how
he participated in a Chessbase organized 'freestyle'event);
Yes, people can also choose to go for sharp lines, for black
imho its risky to go for Sicilian against a very well prepared opponent,
and for white, ah well, you can choose lines like the Danish gambit or so,
but a well prepared opponent/strong computer/engine will also manage
to squeeze out a draw against sharp gambit lines; or UCO openings..
And again, from gutfeeling (no proof, i admit) i'm convinced that
in case of 'perfect play' -if we ever find it- white would not
go for gambit lines, except maybe solid pseudo gambits
like the QGD (but then i prefer Queens Indian for black)
So analysis/bookmaking *is* important, but if i then have managed
to find equalizing move in all (=sufficicient) cases for black,
then at least i have quite some empirical backup to support
my claims; i suppose this will obvious coming years..
(i dont tend to hide my analysis/novelties as the GM's);
no it won't be world shocking, but a gradual process,
at least that's what i foresee.
>> in principle, correct, but in practice moves like 1.e4 and 1.d4
>> have a small advantage,
> With respect, *you* were the one who told us that with
> *perfect play* Black could reduce White's initial advantage
>
yes, but against move like 1.e4 its more difficult (less suitable moves)
than against 1.f3
> [with best play] into the loss of a pawn by move 47; or perhaps
> the drawing gin really is quite wide. We won't know in the next
> few decades; that's as sure as anything is ever sure ....
>
>
probably it will take more than a few decades, even for the 'weak solution';
he initiative to start with CAP II was not taken up by enough people,
so it was abandoned. And as GuyM pointed out, generated 8+ tablebases
will be a huge effort, so even when we take Moore's law into account
it most likely will take more than a few decades. or much longer,
if nobody bothers to do such an amount of work..
best regards
jef
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2008 18:10:55
From: Andy Walker
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
In article <[email protected] >, jefk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Of course we aren't. But there is a difference between a
>> game of chess where the players are human, whether beginners or
>> super-GMs, and one where they play "perfect" moves.
>ok, i see your point, you (and Richerby) would like to have some 'proof'
>like a 32 man table base, where immediately the perfect move is given;
Whoa! You seem determined to show us that you *don't* see
the point. "Perfect play" was *your* description of the way in
which Black reduced White's initial advantage to equality, not
something that I [and perhaps also DavidR] would like proof of.
That's not to say that I wouldn't be interested in such a proof,
if it happened to exist in the real world; just that it's not
going to happen Any Time Soon.
My only point is that in the world of perfect play, there
is no such thing in chess as a slight advantage, there are only
wins, draws and losses. This is different from, for example,
ludo or backgammon, where "perfect play" would have probabilistic
outcomes, and it might make sense to describe, say, a 51% chance
of winning as a "slight advantage". *Im*perfect play also has
this probabilistic content, in which context different levels of
advantage make sense.
[...]
>And again, from gutfeeling (no proof, i admit) i'm convinced that
>in case of 'perfect play' -if we ever find it- white would not
>go for gambit lines, except maybe solid pseudo gambits
>like the QGD (but then i prefer Queens Indian for black)
In the case of "perfect play", then a gambit line *is*
perfect play if it preserves the initial value [such as "draw"]
and is a blunder otherwise. If perfect chess is indeed a draw,
and if the "drawing gin" is not very slim indeed, then the
likelihood is that all sorts of utter rubbish is "perfect" --
a game starting 1 c3 Nc6 2 Qb3 g5 ... seems just as "good" as
the latest wrinkle in the Ruy.
If we're talking more about practical play in the presence
of extremely strong players, then Bronstein, for one, would not
have agreed with you. Gambits remain a useful weapon against the
computer, given a gambiteer well-versed in anti-computer play.
The point is that the pawn is irrelevant to the ultimate outcome
of the game, but meanwhile it disrupts the computer's evaluation
function. This is even more the case with material imbalances
such as RRN vs RBB.
>>> in principle, correct, but in practice moves like 1.e4 and 1.d4
>>> have a small advantage,
>> With respect, *you* were the one who told us that with
>> *perfect play* Black could reduce White's initial advantage
>yes, but against move like 1.e4 its more difficult (less suitable moves)
>than against 1.f3
As DavidR has commented, this is an important consideration
for imperfect human play, irrelevant with perfect play.
> [...] And as GuyM pointed out, generated 8+ tablebases
>will be a huge effort, so even when we take Moore's law into account
>it most likely will take more than a few decades. or much longer,
>if nobody bothers to do such an amount of work..
Moore's Law, while it lasts, gives us an extra piece every
decade, so we should see the 32-man tablebase in 2260 or so. That
is, of course, unless the Law breaks down before that!
*Slightly* more realistically, if we ever got to somewhere
around the 24-man tablebases, then some opening lines would lead
directly into the tablebases [and so be solved]. The effect would
be that players would have to avoid exchanges in order to keep the
game "interesting", and games would tend to consist of opening
"tableaux", with pieces set out by both players, followed by a very
sharp period of threatened exchanges into won/drawn positions, and
a "mop-up" phase of using the tablebases.
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2008 22:46:39
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
Andy Walker <[email protected] > wrote:
> *Slightly* more realistically, if we ever got to somewhere
> around the 24-man tablebases, then some opening lines would lead
> directly into the tablebases [and so be solved].
Note that this is exactly how Schaeffer's team solved checkers: they
built n-man tablebases for some value of n that corresponds to `most
of the pieces on the board' and then used exhaustive search up to the
point where the tablebases provided terminal evaluations.
> The effect would be that players would have to avoid exchanges in
> order to keep the game "interesting", and games would tend to
> consist of opening "tableaux", with pieces set out by both players,
> followed by a very sharp period of threatened exchanges into
> won/drawn positions, and a "mop-up" phase of using the tablebases.
Well, games between computers would. Human beings would be unable to
memorize or understand the tablebases so they wouldn't help us much.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Aquatic Hilarious Spoon (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a piece of cutlery but it's
a bundle of laughs and it lives in
the sea!
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2008 19:35:03
From: jefk
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
well Andy (actually i prefer Johnny) and David,
i'm not interested in a 'perfect' discussion about
mathematical logic and philosophy of science,
only wanted to show that chess is a draw (it is, btw).
And there are various ways for black to maintain
a draw; whereby i *assume* that white, trying to
win will aim for a long game, whereby black, trying
to equalize, will try to get a short -drawish- game.
Whether its fundamentally/mathematically speaking
'perfect play' or not if black still would manage to get
a draw, but in much more moves than the minimum,
i dont care, so i'm out of here, have fun :)
cheers, maybe until later,
Jef
PS yep the 50 move endgame draw rule is stupid
in computer chess, but then i'm repeating myself :)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Feb 2008 10:01:56
From: NOSPAM
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
jefk <[email protected] > shat:
>well Andy (actually i prefer Johnny) and David,
>i'm not interested in a 'perfect' discussion about
>mathematical logic and philosophy of science,
Then don't make claims of a mathematical/logical
nature that you can't prove.
>only wanted to show that chess is a draw (it is, btw).
Liar.
>i dont care, so i'm out of here, have fun :)
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, loser.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2008 12:58:25
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
jefk <[email protected] > wrote:
> Andy Walker wrote
>> Of course we aren't. But there is a difference between a game of
>> chess where the players are human, whether beginners or super-GMs,
>> and one where they play "perfect" moves.
>
> ok, i see your point, you (and Richerby) would like to have some
> 'proof' like a 32 man table base, where immediately the perfect move
> is given; well i can agree of course that i can't supply such
> 'proof' ...
A proof is necessary in order to claim that chess is solved. (Inci-
dentally, a full 32-man tablebase would constitute strong solution of
chess, since it would indicate how to reach the game-theoretic outcome
of every possible position.) Empirical arguments like yours are
sufficient for empirical conclusions but not the conclusions you were
trying to draw.
I agree, even in the absence of a proof, that chess is likely to be a
draw with perfect play. But this does not constitute `solving chess'.
> nevertheless i've given many arguments why i believe (even
> convinced) that chess is a draw, based on a lot of work/analysis.
Yes. But you were claiming that these arguments constituted a
solution of chess, which they do not. I agree that most of them are
evidence that chess probably is a draw.
>>> in principle, correct, but in practice moves like 1.e4 and 1.d4
>>> have a small advantage,
>> With respect, *you* were the one who told us that with
>> *perfect play* Black could reduce White's initial advantage
>
> yes, but against move like 1.e4 its more difficult (less suitable
> moves) than against 1.f3
Agreed. And, for this reason, 1.e4 is, practically, a much better
move than 1.f3. But it's still possible that 1.f3 is the only winning
move for White, even though he has to walk very carefully to avoid
losing.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Flammable Cat (TM): it's like a cat
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ but it burns really easily!
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2008 07:47:50
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Solving Chess -Guy Macon
|
Andy Walker wrote:
>there is a difference between a game of chess where the
>players are human, whether beginners or super-GMs, and
>one where they play "perfect" moves.
There is a website at Bell Labs that allows us mere humans
to experience what playing against a perfect player is like.
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/who/ken/chesseg.html
The page pits you against a 6-man tablesbase and thus will
play perfectly -- but only from the positions available on
the page.
If White always picks the lowest number, and black always
picks the highest, that's perfect play. Or you can hide
the numbers until you have decided what to do by moving
the browser window so they are off screen, and thus play
your skills against those of a perfect player.
I like to try to predict what the reply will be to each
of my moves -- which at least for me gets easier to do
as it gets closer to the end -- and to stop and study the
position when I see that my choice isn't close to being
the best move available. Humbling, but instructive.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2008 12:01:54
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Solving Chess -Guy Macon
|
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> There is a website at Bell Labs that allows us mere humans
> to experience what playing against a perfect player is like.
>
> http://plan9.bell-labs.com/who/ken/chesseg.html
>
> The page pits you against a 6-man tablesbase and thus will
> play perfectly -- but only from the positions available on
> the page.
>
> If White always picks the lowest number, and black always
> picks the highest, that's perfect play.
Not quite. There is no law of chess that says that shorter wins are
preferable. So any move that does not change the outcome of the game
is `perfect'. In particular, if one side has a forced win, any move
the opponent could make is just as good or bad as any other.
Now, for practical play, the player with an advantage wants the game
over as quickly as possible, to minimize the chances of mistakes, and
the player at a disadvantage wants to drag the game out for as long as
possible.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Indelible Car (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ high-performance luxury car but it
can't be erased!
|
| |
Date: 04 Feb 2008 23:24:19
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Master Level/ Advance Level will play perfect.
|
> > Here I said "I think" Which means what I think about something. It
> > does not mean I am going to bet for it just because I think of it.
>
> > Here, I am proposing something to have more information so that I can
> > judge whether I was Correct.
>
> =A0 Sanny, you already have oodles of information showing that your
> program plays nowhere near perfectly on any of its levels. It is poor-
> to-mediocre at best, atrocious at worst. You are quite clearly NOT
> correct.
>
> =A0 So, you are either a liar or a fool. Which is it?
I think you have a bit Problem in understanding things. I am neither
liar nor a fool. You are doing unnecesary arguments on a thing that do
not matter much.
If you had beaten Master Level then it does not mean it cannot improve
further . It is improving every week. Earlier everyone used to play
with Master level and Win. Now most of them are playing with Beginner
& Easy Level. Why? The time taken by Master has dropped down from
earlier 1 hour to 10 Minutes now. Still people are not willing to play
with Master level as they are afraid of loosing the game.
Now I find many games where Beginner Level has Won. And I find that
everyones rating is going down.
If the improvement continues as before the day is not far when It will
play as good as Crafty/ Fritz/ Rybka and other Strong Chess Programs.
GetClub Game is made just to win against Human Players, I have no
motive of having it play with other Commercial programs. As it is
made just for fun and not for competing with other Commercial Chess
Programs.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 04 Feb 2008 22:23:05
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Solving Chess
|
On Feb 5, 8:56=A0am, Ray Johnstone <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:07:24 +0100, jefk <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Ray Johnstone wrote:
>
> >> I think we can never know the answer to the question of the
> >> solvability ofchess:
>
> >well i've seen your site, but i 'm still convincedchessis a draw
> >(since a few weeks only);
> >only way to win is exploiting book mistakes of your opponents.
> >If someone like eg. J.Noomen would continue his work,
> >after a while topchessengines playing with his book should
> >get a draw result, that's 99.9999999999 % certain for me;
> >(with conventionalchessrules of course)
> >and otherwise i could help Noomen =A0i guess..
> >;)
> >best regards,
> >jef
> >http://superchess.blogspot.com
>
> >>http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/Chessgames.htm
>
> You may of course be right.
> For me there remain 2 problems. One is that thechesstree branches
> so rapidly that no computer can ever examine all positions.
> The other is that even experts can be deceived by a position. A
> classic example is
> =A0Byrne-Fischer 1963:
> On page 297 of Fischer's "My 60 Memorable Games," Byrne is
> quoted as saying "The culminating combination is of such depth that,
> even at the very moment at which I resigned, both grandmasters who
> were
> commenting on the play for the spectators in a separate room believed
> that I had a won game."White resigned on his 22nd move.
> So if you decided to cut the tree short and do a computer-human
> analysis by
> printing the positions after
> 21 moves and have them evaluated by GMs there would likely be serious
> errors.
>
> [email protected]/~ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
In Chess after every move new 30-40 moves are generated.
So For 1 depth : 30
2 depth : 900
3 depth: 27000
4 depth: 810000
5 depth: 24300000
6 depth :729000000
7 depth: 21870000000
8 depth: 656100000000
9 depth: 19683000000000
10 depth: 590490000000000
So just in 10 depth we reached 590 Trillion Moves.
Say Each Move Generation needs 1000 Calculations.
So 10 depth search needs 590,000 Trillion Calculations.
Fast Desktop works on 10 GFlops. So It will take 59,000,000 seconds on
fast desktop to perform exhausted 10 depth search. It will take 2
years to do 10 depth Checking of all moves.
10 depth means just 5 Moves. So for 5 Moves We need our desktops to
think for 2 Years.
In case we use Fastest Super Computer That work PetaFlop
PetaFlop SuperComputer will do 10 depth search in 1/2 second.
But if we go to say 15 depth Even Petaflop will take.
10 depth: 1/2 seconds
11 depth: 15 seconds
12 depth: 450 seconds
13 depth: 13,500 seconds
14 depth: 405,000 seconds
15 depth: 12,150,000 seconds
So 15 depth on a PetaFlop Computer which fastest supercomputer in the
world will take: 12,150,000 seconds
Which is 3375 hours. or 140 days or ~ 5 Months.
So to evaluate all moves upto 15 depth even on Fastest Supercomputer
that works at speed of Petaflop will take 5 Months.
To Solve Chess we need to search till atleast 100 depth. That will
take even more than Billions of Billions of Billions of years on a
Petaflop Super Computer.
Such a Computer can never be made atleast in next 100,000 years of Man
Kind even him Moores Law is Followed.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 05 Feb 2008 13:10:30
From: jefk
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
Sanny wrote:
> In Chess after every move new 30-40 moves are generated.
>
>
>
well Sanny, that might be correct, but many of these moves are tactical
mistakes, or give away material immediately. and with perfect play
the game in such a case is subsequently lost (excluding some deep
combinations, but these are recognized in 99.99999 % of the
cases by an engine as Rybka imho);
so in reality/practice, there are about 3-12 moves possible
for each side, in sharp play sometimes there's only one
correct move, in positional play/endgames there might
even be sometimes more moves possible than 12;
in any case its much less than the 3-40 you mention
> So just in 10 depth we reached 590 Trillion Moves.
>
>
well it's less, see above, but it's not a st way of generating
a database; if you generate a positional database (thats the
way modern opening books are made), because of
the many *transpositions*, the number of positions will
be mcu& *much* less.
In fact, if we exclude tactical mistakes, i believe it would
be possible to generate a database at 25 ply (12.5 moves)
deep with all possible correct/non losing moves.
> Say Each Move Generation needs 1000 Calculations.
>
all this calculations can be done offline, and on other computers,
or by GM's; by loading in slow GM games from history i
already have used lots of knowledge/ human calcuation power..
\
And when using computers/engines, you forget a very important
element in speeding up the calculation, namely the socalled
*alfa/beta* algorithm. from what i vaguely remember
this speeds up the calculation process -to find the right move-
with about 50 times.
Not everybody seems to be aware of such methods, eg.
GM Kasparov in his book 'why chess looks like life',
claims that there are more positions in chess than
atoms in the univers. humbug, but Gary isn't an
astrophysicist, you know; he's a politician.. :)
> So to evaluate all moves upto 15 depth even on Fastest Supercomputer
> that works at speed of Petaflop will take 5 Months.
>
i've been busy with computerchess about 15 years, and gradually
have been building up my database; while its'not perfect, i'm
certain that at least until about ply 25 no advantage for white
can be made, wheter you play Italian, 1.d4, or whatever.
In a later stage i thought that a minimal advantage with
the Ruy Lopez could be achieved, but with extensive
analysis with Rybka i've found some novelties and
now am convinced that black also can maintain a draw.
> To Solve Chess we need to search till atleast 100 depth. That will
> take even more than Billions of Billions of Billions of years
we don't have to fully analyze the game i think.
for every winning plan for white, i believe there
exists a proper defence system for black.
(there exist of course some simple games
where all possibilities *can* be calculated , and
it's proven with 100 % certainty they are a draw,
but indeed such a method does'nt seem
possible for chess, at least for some millennia)
example, although i'm not an expert in the
game of draughts (or checkers), from what i've
vaguely read/seen in some articles, the scientific/
computer games community seems to be
convinced these games are a draw, even although
they haven't fully calculated all possibilities;
well, i now am convinced the same hold for chess..
but if you disagree, well, than i challenge you just
like Ray Johnston -or others- to show me
a winning line for white; and then i guarantee
that i will find improvement(s) for black
which ensure the draw. Good luck.. :)
best regards,
jef
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2008 13:38:30
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
jefk <[email protected] > wrote:
>Sanny wrote:
>> In Chess after every move new 30-40 moves are generated.
>
> well Sanny, that might be correct, but many of these moves are
> tactical mistakes, or give away material immediately. and with
> perfect play the game in such a case is subsequently lost (excluding
> some deep combinations, but these are recognized in 99.99999 % of
> the cases by an engine as Rybka imho);
>
> so in reality/practice, there are about 3-12 moves possible for each
> side, in sharp play sometimes there's only one correct move, in
> positional play/endgames there might even be sometimes more moves
> possible than 12; in any case its much less than the 3-40 you
> mention
You're begging the question. You can't know that all of those moves
are tactical mistakes until you've analyzed them fully. Now, if all
you're interested in is playing *good* chess, it's acceptable to have
a quick look at these moves and throw them away if they don't come
good within a few ply. However, if you want to play *perfect* chess,
you have to look at absolutely everything. It might just be that the
winning strategy for White involves a queen sacrifice on move five
that doesn't pay off until move 100. Staggeringly unlikely but still
possible.
>> To Solve Chess we need to search till atleast 100 depth. That will
>> take even more than Billions of Billions of Billions of years
>
> we don't have to fully analyze the game i think.
You can't *solve* chess without fully anazlyzing it.
> for every winning plan for white, i believe there exists a proper
> defence system for black.
For a *winning* plan for white there is, by definition, no proper
defence. If there were a proper defence, the plan wouldn't be
winning!
> (there exist of course some simple games where all possibilities
> *can* be calculated , and it's proven with 100 % certainty they are
> a draw, but indeed such a method does'nt seem possible for chess, at
> least for some millennia)
Agreed.
> example, although i'm not an expert in the game of draughts (or
> checkers), from what i've vaguely read/seen in some articles, the
> scientific/ computer games community seems to be convinced these
> games are a draw, even although they haven't fully calculated all
> possibilities;
Schaeffer et al have fully solved checkers.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Confusing Cheese Cat (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a cat that's made of cheese but you
can't understand it!
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2008 09:08:20
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Solving Chess??? (it's a draw!)
|
David Richerby wrote:
>
> You can't *solve* chess without fully anazlyzing it.
> ...
>
> Schaeffer et al have fully solved checkers.
>
>
These two statements are inconsistent with each other.
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| | |
Date: 05 Feb 2008 12:05:43
From: Andy Walker
Subject: Re: Solving Chess
|
In article <63fc7c2e-74a6-4ef9-983a-4687f6e69fb6@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com >,
Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
>In Chess after every move new 30-40 moves are generated.
As Guy has pointed out, this is not the case for the
initial position; but it's a reasonable approximation further
down the tree.
[...]
>So just in 10 depth we reached 590 Trillion Moves.
>Say Each Move Generation needs 1000 Calculations.
>So 10 depth search needs 590,000 Trillion Calculations.
Only if you feel the need to do a complete calculation
for *every* move sequence. (a) If you have a sufficiently large
transposition table, then positions at depth 10 are typically
reached by approximately (5!)^2 == 14400 different routes, meaning
you could save "something like" that factor in speed. (b) If you
are interested only in finding the evaluation [and best move] at
the root, then alpha-beta pruning roughly square-roots the number
of lines you need to look at, giving you an improvement by around
30^5 == 24300000. (c) Sadly, these effects are not entirely
independent, otherwise you could speed up your search by a factor
of around 300 000 000 000 [cutting your time from 2y to 0.2ms].
(d) But they are good enough that Fritz [etc] can do complete
searches to depth 12 and more [plus lots of extensions down the
"interesting" lines, often to depth 25+] in typical middle-game
positions in a few seconds. Go figure ....
>To Solve Chess we need to search till atleast 100 depth. [...]
If you insist on searching every possible game, you are
short by a factor of around 120. Once we enter these realms of
fantasy, you are better off searching *positions* rather than
games, as there are *many* fewer of them. [But there are plenty
of legal positions that cannot be reached within 100 ply.]
>Such a Computer can never be made atleast in next 100,000 years of Man
>Kind even him Moores Law is Followed.
Actually *if* Moore's Law is followed, then we gain a
move every 3 to 7.5 years or so, depending on assumptions, and
1000 years of progress will work wonders. But long before that
we run up against some pretty fundamental laws of physics, so
at least we can say that we won't get 1000 years of Moore's Law
applying to conventional computers of the sort we have today.
After that, all bets are off. As Guy says, quantum computing
may come riding to the rescue. Or perhaps not.
[More interesting, to me at least, is that while Moore's
Law operates, we gain a piece in the endgame tablebases every
decade or so. So 10 or 11 piece tablebases are not implausible,
even with conventional computers. It seems hard to imagine the
Law operating *much* beyond that; but then, it always did.]
--
Andy Walker
Nottingham
|
| |
Date: 03 Feb 2008 12:37:58
From:
Subject: Re: Master Level/ Advance Level will play perfect.
|
On Feb 3, 1:22=A0pm, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > Just as I think Master Level &
> > > Advance Level play perfect games.
>
> > =A0 See? You're still doing it, after admitting you have no basis
> > whatever for such a claim!
>
> A sentence should be read properly.
>
> I said "Just as I think Master Level & Advance Level play perfect
> games".
>
> Here I said "I think" Which means what I think about something. It
> does not mean I am going to bet for it just because I think of it.
>
> Here, I am proposing something to have more information so that I can
> judge whether I was Correct.
Sanny, you already have oodles of information showing that your
program plays nowhere near perfectly on any of its levels. It is poor-
to-mediocre at best, atrocious at worst. You are quite clearly NOT
correct.
So, you are either a liar or a fool. Which is it?
|
| |
Date: 03 Feb 2008 10:22:01
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Master Level/ Advance Level will play perfect.
|
>
> > Just as I think Master Level &
> > Advance Level play perfect games.
>
> =A0 See? You're still doing it, after admitting you have no basis
> whatever for such a claim!
A sentence should be read properly.
I said "Just as I think Master Level & Advance Level play perfect
games".
Here I said "I think" Which means what I think about something. It
does not mean I am going to bet for it just because I think of it.
Here, I am proposing something to have more information so that I can
judge whether I was Correct.
"I think today it will rain" It just means I have a belief that it
will happen. There are chances that I may be wrong. But Still I am
thinking that way. Because the Probablity is more than 50%. I am
proposing something to have more information so that I can judge
whether I was Correct.
I suppose that clears the objective.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Solving Chess
|
|
| | |
Date: 04 Feb 2008 18:55:58
From: jefk
Subject: Re: Solving Chess
|
tin Brown wrote
> I don't think that at all. If the game is won for white then there is
> at least one perfect game where no matter what black does white can
> force a win.
theoretical possible, but highly unlikely, if not completely impossible
>
> In real play yes, but in game theory the final outcome of a
> deterministic game like chess with perfect play is one of win, draw or
> lose for white. We just don't know which one it is.
well after some comprehensive analysis with Ryba i
now strongly suspect it's a draw..
so computer chess games probably will become boring in future,
eg. Hydra vs Rybka, if Rybka would play on a strong multicpu,
than the outcome should be a draw.
so you could indeed say that normal chess is 'dead' as
the late R.J. Fischer claimed, probably also to
promote his random Fischer (or 360) chess;
maybe in computer chess it also would be interesting
to abolish the 50 move draw rule, as with the 6,
and later 7 man endgame bases we could get
interesting results (?); also in random/shuffle chess.
best regards
jef
http://superchess.blogspot.com
|
| |
Date: 30 Jan 2008 11:58:24
From: Ray Johnstone
Subject: Re: Solving Chess
|
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:22:13 -0800 (PST), pialogue
<[email protected] > wrote:
>I realize that not everyone is interested in the concept of "solving
>chess" due to its many complexities and variations of "midgame" play.
>However, what if the SECRET to solving chess is in the "draw"
>dynamic? In other words what if the solution to chess was in playing
>perfect "defense"? Would not a perfectly played game of chess NOT
>result in a draw? How else could it end? The ONLY way that someone
>"wins" is if a "mistake" was made, right? Therefore, if someone wins
>then that was NOT a "perfect" game played by both sides.
>
>It has been said that it is possible for white to force a draw in a
>number of ways but I am talking about a "perfect game" here where both
>sides apply perfect strategy which is oriented or strategized toward
>long-term defense more than offense. I know that some people think
>that the game would then just be "stuck" with no one able to move but
>this dynamic plays into what I call "viable strategy" where a stuck
>game draw is the same as a loss for BOTH sides. In other words, a
>"true" draw under the "perfect" scenario ends with ONLY the two Kings
>on the board.
>
>So, what are your thoughts on "Solving Chess"?
>
>Any thoughts on the best chess game ever played by either human or
>computer would also be greatly appreciated.
>
>Thanks for your potential participation in this intellectual inquiry.
I think we can never know the answer to the question of the
solvability of chess:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/Chessgames.htm
[email protected]
www.iinet.com.au/~ray
|
| | |
Date: 04 Feb 2008 19:07:24
From: jefk
Subject: Re: Solving Chess
|
Ray Johnstone wrote:
> I think we can never know the answer to the question of the
> solvability of chess:
>
well i've seen your site, but i 'm still convinced chess is a draw
(since a few weeks only);
only way to win is exploiting book mistakes of your opponents.
If someone like eg. J.Noomen would continue his work,
after a while top chess engines playing with his book should
get a draw result, that's 99.9999999999 % certain for me;
(with conventional chess rules of course)
and otherwise i could help Noomen i guess..
;)
best regards,
jef
http://superchess.blogspot.com
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/Chessgames.htm
>
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2008 11:53:35
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Solving Chess
|
jefk <[email protected] > wrote:
> only way to win is exploiting book mistakes of your opponents.
That just isn't true. Sorry.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Poetic Perforated Postman (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a man who delivers the mail but
it's full of holes and in verse!
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2008 13:34:23
From: jefk
Subject: Re: Solving Chess
|
David Richerby wrote:
> jefk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> only way to win is exploiting book mistakes of your opponents.
>>
>
> That just isn't true. Sorry.
>
>
well it's the main way nowadays , and as i wrote, when the
programs are getting stronger, eg. Rybka on a fast mp, against
eg. Hydra, the chance that the stronger comp (probably Hydra)
will find a winning plan (or combination, an even more unlikely
event) is very small, as the better the comps are
getting, the higher the draw percentage.
But anyway, whether a book mistake, or a winning plan
which cannot be defended by black, i als challenge you,
mr Richerby, to show me a winning game for white,
and i promise i will show you a better defence for black;
after which you can think for some years to find
another winning plan again.. (a futile effort,
and i know it, cause i tried it myself for years..)
So i believe there will be a 'weak solution' for chess, just as in
English draughts (checkers), see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game
correcting my previous statement on Dutch draughts,
maybe there is no weak solution yet, but i'm
strongly convinced it's a draw, just like checkers.
as for chess, i forgot to mention the CAP project
organized by Dann Corbit, well known by experienced
computer chess experts; the program Chess Assistant
claims to have a CAP database with about 30 million
positions, but i don't believe all these positions have
been analyzed by top engines, and certainly not Rybka.
Maybe we should repeat this CAP exercise with
many Rybka engines ? ah well, a futile effort,
a the result is known by me: chess is a draw..
Although not proven as strongly as the program
Chinook did with checkers, with Rybka, further
anallysis and using some other chess experience,
for me i can add chess to the games which have
been solved with the 'weak' method.
Chances that it's a win for white is indeed,
smaller than one divided by the nr of atoms
in the universe.(haven't counted them though..)
:)
best regards,
jef
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2008 13:59:09
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Solving Chess
|
jefk <[email protected] > wrote:
> But anyway, whether a book mistake, or a winning plan which cannot
> be defended by black, i als challenge you, mr Richerby, to show me a
> winning game for white, and i promise i will show you a better
> defence for black;
That is a fatuous challenge, for three reasons. First, and somewhat
fatuous itself, there's nothing to stop you saying `Well, Black's
mistake was to play the Sicilian; he should have played the French'
and place the onus on me to demonstrate that the French is no better.
Second, and more important, the game-theoretical outcome of chess does
not depend on my ability to identify well-played games. Third, and
most important, all you're saying is `I have a stronger computer than
any player whose games you can quote to me.' Stronger simply because
you can afford to leave the thing running until it comes up with a
move that better optimizes its evaluation function than the one of the
moves played in the game.
> Although not proven as strongly as the program Chinook did with
> checkers, with Rybka, further anallysis and using some other chess
> experience, for me i can add chess to the games which have been
> solved with the 'weak' method.
No you can't. To make a genuine claim that chess has been weakly
solved, you need to do one of the following:
1) exhibit a strategy, starting at the initial position, that allows
White to win against any possible Black responses;
2) exhibit a strategy, starting at the initial position, that allows
Black to win against any possible White responses; or
3) exhibit a strategy, starting at the initial position, that allows
White to avoid losing, against any possible Black responses and one
that allows Black to avoid losing against any possible White
responses.
I agree that there is a lot of empirical evidence that chess is a draw
but that does not consitute solution of the game.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Perforated Erotic Pants (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a well-tailored pair of trousers
but it's genuinely erotic and full
of holes!
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2008 10:12:43
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Solving Chess
|
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:1sz*[email protected]...
>
> I agree that there is a lot of empirical evidence that chess is a draw
> but that does not consitute solution of the game.
>
>
But what *is* the value of the empiricial evidence? That's the more interesting
question. And the answer is certainly not "nothing".
Consider checkers. It has been known, not *proven*, to be a draw for a
long, long time. Only recently has someone actually gone through the effort
of documenting an entire drawing path - an exercize that has taught us
absolutely nothing about the game of checkers.
Proof and knowledge seem to be unrelated in this problem.
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2008 12:56:15
From: Ray Johnstone
Subject: Re: Solving Chess
|
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:07:24 +0100, jefk <[email protected] > wrote:
>Ray Johnstone wrote:
>
>> I think we can never know the answer to the question of the
>> solvability of chess:
>>
>well i've seen your site, but i 'm still convinced chess is a draw
>(since a few weeks only);
>only way to win is exploiting book mistakes of your opponents.
>If someone like eg. J.Noomen would continue his work,
>after a while top chess engines playing with his book should
>get a draw result, that's 99.9999999999 % certain for me;
>(with conventional chess rules of course)
>and otherwise i could help Noomen i guess..
>;)
>best regards,
>jef
>http://superchess.blogspot.com
>
>
>> http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/Chessgames.htm
>>
You may of course be right.
For me there remain 2 problems. One is that the chess tree branches
so rapidly that no computer can ever examine all positions.
The other is that even experts can be deceived by a position. A
classic example is
Byrne-Fischer 1963:
On page 297 of Fischer's "My 60 Memorable Games," Byrne is
quoted as saying "The culminating combination is of such depth that,
even at the very moment at which I resigned, both grandmasters who
were
commenting on the play for the spectators in a separate room believed
that I had a won game."White resigned on his 22nd move.
So if you decided to cut the tree short and do a computer-human
analysis by
printing the positions after
21 moves and have them evaluated by GMs there would likely be serious
errors.
[email protected]
www.iinet.com.au/~ray
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2008 12:47:49
From: jefk
Subject: Re: Solving Chess/it's a draw!
|
Ray Johnstone wrote
> For me there remain 2 problems. One is that the chess tree branches
> so rapidly that no computer can ever examine all positions.
>
correct, but i don't think we have to examine all positions,
see my next reply to 'Sanny'
> The other is that even experts can be deceived by a position. A
> classic example is Byrne-Fischer 1963:
> On page 297 of Fischer's "My 60 Memorable Games,"
found it, 18-12-1963
> both grandmasters who were commenting on the play for the spectators
> in a separate room believed that I had a won game."White resigned
> on his 22nd move.
well that's humbug, or those grandmasters were not looking very well,
Byrnes last move Kf1 was a clear mistake, even an engine as Crafty
very quickly evaluates the result as minus 3, which usually will become
a loss.
Kf2 would have been better, although he already had an inferior position.
he went the wrong track in the opening already at move 12 with Qd2!?,
in Poldauf-Heinig (both about 2300) in 1988 12. Rac1 was played ,
a much better move.
> So if you decided to cut the tree short and do a computer-human
> analysis by printing the positions after 21 moves and have them
> evaluated by GMs there would likely be serious errors.
>
>
that's not the way how i've done my analysis; please note i'm involved in
computer chess for about 15 years, and had quite some discussions
with other expert, like eg. Hyatt. In the positional database which i
use for my opening research most positions (more than 15 million)
were only loaded in if they had been played by GM's two times or more.
The end evaluations have been done mostly by Crafty, at a depth
deep enough to recognize mistakes like Byrne made, but i also
have made a lot of corrections, mostly automaticly by Crafty
at the early stage of the opening (resulting in many sidelines
and transpositions), and done a lot of manual finetuning/analysis,
last year with Rybka, with interesting results.
You could say ofcourse that a computer eval at ply 12 (6 moves) means
nothing
and that with a much longer combination of say 10 moves or longer even
evals as low (or high) as -3 can be compensated by later moves,
but this is extremely rare in practical/real games.
But let's use a scientific approach: the conjecture i've put forward is:
chess is a draw; (some prelimanry 'lemma's which confirm this
theory/ strong hypothesis/confecture are on my weblog,
http://superchess.blogspot.com
Now feel free to falsify this (you or others) and try to find
a game won by white where black didnt make much mistakes;
then i will show you the mistake black made, and i will
give you the correct move necessary for black to maintain
a drawish position. good luck..
:)
jef
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 17:39:27
From: pialogue
Subject: Re: Solving Chess
|
First off, the "Sanny/ttk5" exchange appears to be SPAMBOT based and
off-topic. Is there any way to delete those messages or at least ban
Sanny from posting here?
Thank you VERY much for introducing me to the concept of "zugzwang" as
I had never previously considered the possibility that chess was an
inherently flawed game from the very beginning. I feel like I did
when someone introduced me to the concept of oligarchy relative to the
concept of politics. ;o)
Or perhaps the so-called flaw was actually a form of "trap" that you
had to be sure to prepare for and avoid ahead of time? I guess that
is the end result either way, a bummer dynamic for the naive or lesser-
achieved person?
I also get the feeling from the responses above as well as those sent
to me privately that the concept of "perfect" is relative depending
upon a person's personal opinion or frame of perspective. In other
words, in my opinion, there are so many different possibilities for
very good plays in the opening and middle games such that the only
real "perfect" result would be the game ending in a draw period. A
perfect game of defense for black would be to counter or block white's
initial theoretical advantage and black's ability to lure white off of
a previously-planned successful path.
Now obviously I am talking about a perfect game by BOTH players. A
perfect game for either side obviously results in a win and I agree
that a good endgame database, very soon to be a "totalgame" database,
is essential.
Thanks!
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 14:07:49
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Solving Chess
|
On Jan 28, 1:22 pm, pialogue <[email protected] > wrote:
> So, what are your thoughts on "Solving Chess"?
Instead of focusing on draws or perfect defense,
a better approach would be to focus on the idea
of endgame table-bases.
The reason is simple: no matter how deeply
you might *calculate* defenses to various and
sundry attacks, you could never be certain that
there is not a deeper strategy of attack which
has not been anticipated, which can prevail.
A simplified example of this is where, for
many decades, grandmasters preached that
certain positions could not be won-- only to
die and have their great-great-grandchildren
discover they were dead wrong. The strategy
was beyond their grasp, but real nonetheless.
With the endgame table-bases, no such
errors creep in. Sure, there will always be
people who maintain that there are more
data than can be "held" in the molecules of
the "known universe" or whatever, but we've
already seen their kind get trampled under-
foot before, under the heels of technology
and its relentless advance. These small-
minded folks remind me of the old days, of
back when nearly all the pundits screamed
that no chess program would *ever* defeat
a master... later changed to "grandmaster",
for the obvious reasons.
I say that these endgame table-bases
*can* be beefed up more and more, until
they eventually reach a point where they
meet super-engines somewhere in mid
game. Right now, Best Buy sells hard
drives which can hold more than the nay-
sayers said could ever be held, and the
price is within reach of ordinary folks. Ten
years hence, I expect BB to have been
bought out or taken over, but Wal-t,
Wal-t will then likely be selling drives
which wirelessly connect to our Apple
computers (yes, APPL) and which can
hold 7, 8, or maybe even 9-man TBs
with no trouble at all.
Given sufficient time, chess will be
solved-- at least to the extent that man
will know the definitive answers to such
questions as "was Bobby Fischer's Bxh2
a losing move, or could he still have
drawn?" And chess engines will be so
strong that the question of \winning will
be moot; the goal of the world's top GMs
will be to somehow squeak out a draw.
There will necessarily be a reversion to
the old days, to the days of Knight or
Rook odds.
Discussions will center around just how
far can a chess program go, in terms of
contempt factors; 2 pawns? Three? Even
more?
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 10:55:21
From:
Subject: Re: Master Level/ Advance Level will play perfect.
|
On Jan 29, 1:09=A0pm, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 29, 11:03=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Jan 29, 12:48=A0pm, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I am just guessing it may be correct or not.
>
> > =A0 So then, you really had no basis for saying "Master level will play
> > perfect game." In other words, Sanny, you were lying.
>
> Guessing something does not mean lying.
Sanny, the plain fact is that you claimed your program was perfect.
You had absolutely no basis for that -- not even the slightest grounds
for even guessing that it might be. On the contrary, you have on file
hundreds of games proving that it is very imperfect.
> Just as I think Master Level &
> Advance Level play perfect games.
See? You're still doing it, after admitting you have no basis
whatever for such a claim!
As we say here in the USA, you are talking through your ass.
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 10:09:18
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Master Level/ Advance Level will play perfect.
|
On Jan 29, 11:03=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 29, 12:48=A0pm, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I am just guessing it may be correct or not.
>
> =A0 So then, you really had no basis for saying "Master level will play
> perfect game." In other words, Sanny, you were lying.
Guessing something does not mean lying. There are many things that we
do not know for certain and we guess them. Say after an Exam someone
asks you how was the exam, I say It was good I feel I will get 60%
ks. But then I get 40% ks. It do not mean I was lying.
In Chess who will win can never be said before. There is always scope
of improvvement.
Even deep blue on a supercomputer was beatable. Even Rybka & Fritz get
beaten in some games. But they win most of the time. We can say Fritz
& Rybka as an Example of Perfect Game. Just as I think Master Level &
Advance Level play perfect games.
But that do not mean they will win always.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 10:03:34
From:
Subject: Re: Master Level/ Advance Level will play perfect.
|
On Jan 29, 12:48=A0pm, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> I am just guessing it may be correct or not.
So then, you really had no basis for saying "Master level will play
perfect game." In other words, Sanny, you were lying.
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 09:48:36
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Master Level/ Advance Level will play perfect.
|
On Jan 29, 10:39=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 29, 12:32=A0pm, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 10:16=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 29, 11:31=A0am, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > So, what are your thoughts on "SolvingChess"?
>
> > > > > Any thoughts on the bestchessgame ever played by either human or
> > > > > computer would also be greatly appreciated.
>
> > > > Master Level/ Advance Level atGetClubChesswill play perfect Game as
> > > > they will think of 10-20 min/move and play the best game.
>
> > > =A0 Utter nonsense. Apparently Sanny doesn't even bother to check his
> > > own records. Looking through them, I found this game, played just 5
> > > days ago. His "master" level is playing Black; readers may judge for
> > > themselves how "perfectly":
>
> > > 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 dxc4 6. Bxc4 e6 7. Nf3=
> > > Nc6 8. O-O h6 9. d5 exd5 10. Re1+ Be6 11. Nxd5 Bc5?? -- Missing an
> > > elementary tactical sequence. 12. Nxf6+ Qxf6 13. Bxe6 fxe6 14. Qd5 Be7=
> > > 15. Rxe6 -- Winning a pawn and retaining the initiative. 15...Qf7 16.
> > > Qe4 O-O? 17. Bxh6 -- Winning another pawn and leaving Black's king
> > > highly vulnerable. The game is effectively over.
> > > =A0 Sanny's "perfect" program was busted after only a dozen moves. It
> > > finally gave up when it had one pawn against two queens.
>
> > > > Such games will always end in a Draw.
>
> > > =A0 Yeah, right. And water always flows uphill.
>
> > Advance Level !!!! And The game was improved 2 days back So Now even
> > Master level will play perfect game.
>
> =A0 Absolute nonsense, Sanny. Would you care to wager, say, $100,000 on
> your boast? If I'm going to waste days of my life waiting for your
> inept program to make its mediocre-to-lousy moves, I must be
> reasonably compensated.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am just guessing it may be correct or not. Game was improved 2 days
back. So Now Master Level will play much strong moves.
I am saying after seeing the recorded games. Today PatzerChess took 82
Moves to win Beginner Level. While other guy beat it in just 40 Moves.
But I can clearly see that now more and more people are loosing at
GetClub.
Earlier everyone was playing with Master Level Now no one dares to
play with it as Master level will win most of the time.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 09:39:52
From:
Subject: Re: Master Level/ Advance Level will play perfect.
|
On Jan 29, 12:32=A0pm, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 29, 10:16=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 11:31=A0am, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > So, what are your thoughts on "Solving Chess"?
>
> > > > Any thoughts on the best chess game ever played by either human or
> > > > computer would also be greatly appreciated.
>
> > > Master Level/ Advance Level at GetClub Chess will play perfect Game as=
> > > they will think of 10-20 min/move and play the best game.
>
> > =A0 Utter nonsense. Apparently Sanny doesn't even bother to check his
> > own records. Looking through them, I found this game, played just 5
> > days ago. His "master" level is playing Black; readers may judge for
> > themselves how "perfectly":
>
> > 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 dxc4 6. Bxc4 e6 7. Nf3
> > Nc6 8. O-O h6 9. d5 exd5 10. Re1+ Be6 11. Nxd5 Bc5?? -- Missing an
> > elementary tactical sequence. 12. Nxf6+ Qxf6 13. Bxe6 fxe6 14. Qd5 Be7
> > 15. Rxe6 -- Winning a pawn and retaining the initiative. 15...Qf7 16.
> > Qe4 O-O? 17. Bxh6 -- Winning another pawn and leaving Black's king
> > highly vulnerable. The game is effectively over.
> > =A0 Sanny's "perfect" program was busted after only a dozen moves. It
> > finally gave up when it had one pawn against two queens.
>
> > > Such games will always end in a Draw.
>
> > =A0 Yeah, right. And water always flows uphill.
>
> Advance Level !!!! And The game was improved 2 days back So Now even
> Master level will play perfect game.
Absolute nonsense, Sanny. Would you care to wager, say, $100,000 on
your boast? If I'm going to waste days of my life waiting for your
inept program to make its mediocre-to-lousy moves, I must be
reasonably compensated.
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 09:32:28
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Master Level/ Advance Level will play perfect.
|
On Jan 29, 10:16=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 29, 11:31=A0am, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > So, what are your thoughts on "Solving Chess"?
>
> > > Any thoughts on the best chess game ever played by either human or
> > > computer would also be greatly appreciated.
>
> > Master Level/ Advance Level at GetClub Chess will play perfect Game as
> > they will think of 10-20 min/move and play the best game.
>
> =A0 Utter nonsense. Apparently Sanny doesn't even bother to check his
> own records. Looking through them, I found this game, played just 5
> days ago. His "master" level is playing Black; readers may judge for
> themselves how "perfectly":
>
> 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 dxc4 6. Bxc4 e6 7. Nf3
> Nc6 8. O-O h6 9. d5 exd5 10. Re1+ Be6 11. Nxd5 Bc5?? -- Missing an
> elementary tactical sequence. 12. Nxf6+ Qxf6 13. Bxe6 fxe6 14. Qd5 Be7
> 15. Rxe6 -- Winning a pawn and retaining the initiative. 15...Qf7 16.
> Qe4 O-O? 17. Bxh6 -- Winning another pawn and leaving Black's king
> highly vulnerable. The game is effectively over.
> =A0 Sanny's "perfect" program was busted after only a dozen moves. It
> finally gave up when it had one pawn against two queens.
>
> > Such games will always end in a Draw.
>
> =A0 Yeah, right. And water always flows uphill.
Advance Level !!!! And The game was improved 2 days back So Now even
Master level will play perfect game.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 09:16:35
From:
Subject: Re: Master Level/ Advance Level will play perfect.
|
On Jan 29, 11:31=A0am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> > So, what are your thoughts on "Solving Chess"?
>
> > Any thoughts on the best chess game ever played by either human or
> > computer would also be greatly appreciated.
>
> Master Level/ Advance Level at GetClub Chess will play perfect Game as
> they will think of 10-20 min/move and play the best game.
Utter nonsense. Apparently Sanny doesn't even bother to check his
own records. Looking through them, I found this game, played just 5
days ago. His "master" level is playing Black; readers may judge for
themselves how "perfectly":
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 dxc4 6. Bxc4 e6 7. Nf3
Nc6 8. O-O h6 9. d5 exd5 10. Re1+ Be6 11. Nxd5 Bc5?? -- Missing an
elementary tactical sequence. 12. Nxf6+ Qxf6 13. Bxe6 fxe6 14. Qd5 Be7
15. Rxe6 -- Winning a pawn and retaining the initiative. 15...Qf7 16.
Qe4 O-O? 17. Bxh6 -- Winning another pawn and leaving Black's king
highly vulnerable. The game is effectively over.
Sanny's "perfect" program was busted after only a dozen moves. It
finally gave up when it had one pawn against two queens.
> Such games will always end in a Draw.
Yeah, right. And water always flows uphill.
|
| |
Date: 29 Jan 2008 08:31:44
From: Sanny
Subject: Master Level/ Advance Level will play perfect.
|
> So, what are your thoughts on "Solving Chess"?
>
> Any thoughts on the best chess game ever played by either human or
> computer would also be greatly appreciated.
Master Level/ Advance Level at GetClub Chess will play perfect Game as
they will think of 10-20 min/move and play the best game.
Such games will always end in a Draw. As both will take each others
pieces and reach a end game which results in draw.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Solving Chess
|
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2008 13:27:48
From: pialogue
Subject: Re: Solving Chess
|
On Jan 28, 11:17 am, TrekNoid <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Would not a perfectly played game of chess NOT
> > result in a draw? How else could it end? The ONLY way that someone
> > "wins" is if a "mistake" was made, right? Therefore, if someone wins
> > then that was NOT a "perfect" game played by both sides.
>
> I disagree. You can't make that an assumption of a 'perfect' game,
> because both side do not move at the same time. White moves first...
> and White's goal is *not* to draw... it's to win. So for White to make
> the 'perfect' move, Black would be lost from the first one.
Well, if that were the case then wouldn't chess ultimately be like
playing Russian Roulette with white having the initial choice of
specifically selecting the chamber that did "not" have the bullet?
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2008 13:17:30
From: TrekNoid
Subject: Re: Solving Chess
|
On Jan 28, 12:22 pm, pialogue <[email protected] > wrote:
> Would not a perfectly played game of chess NOT
> result in a draw? How else could it end? The ONLY way that someone
> "wins" is if a "mistake" was made, right? Therefore, if someone wins
> then that was NOT a "perfect" game played by both sides.
I disagree. You can't make that an assumption of a 'perfect' game,
because both side do not move at the same time. White moves first...
and White's goal is *not* to draw... it's to win. So for White to make
the 'perfect' move, Black would be lost from the first one.
|
| |
Date: 28 Jan 2008 12:48:35
From: pialogue
Subject: Re: Solving Chess
|
Might another aspect of this be to think in terms of initially using
ONLY a database of games that end in King vs King Draws as a means of
enabling a computer chess program to decrease the depth and breadth
searched and increase its speed of response? In other words, using
only what I am calling "near-perfect" games as a means of trimming the
database and thereby providing a higher quality of overall play?
Thanks!
|
|
