Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 08:01:38 12/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
A very strong argument, very well stated. I'd bet money that it's indeed a draw. On December 14, 2000 at 01:06:39, Robin Smith wrote: >On December 13, 2000 at 23:07:25, Michael Neish wrote: > >>On December 13, 2000 at 19:26:20, Robin Smith wrote: >> >>>The likelyhood of chess being a win for white, with perfect play from both >>>sides, is very low. This is born out by computer-computer games, where the draw >>>percentage increases as search depth/time increases and also by the fact that >>>super GM vs. super GM games have a much higher draw rate than games by lower >>>rated players. In both cases as playing strength increases the percentage of >>>draws also increases. Strong evidence that chess is a draw. Also, in decisive >>>games one almost invariably finds that one of the players either made a mistake >>>or mistakes, or at the very least took unneccesary risks. And most strong >>>chesspayers believe a perfectly played game should end in a draw. When Kasparov >>>was once asked why he did not win a particular game he replied "Chess is a draw, >>>no?". >>>So, there will NEVER be any computer opening database, no matter how big, where >>>computers (playing white) think the 1st position out of book is always at least >>>+2.50 for the computer .... unless the computer has a seriously flawed >>>evaluation, in which case it will hardly mean chess is solved. >>> >> >>With all due respect, the points you make in your post, if correct (and some I >>think are debatable), merely suggest that Chess might be a draw, and do not >>prove it. They do not justify the strong conclusion you make at the end. > >Although I will be the first to agree it is not proof, the evidence is strong, >and I believe it supports a strong conclusion .... chess with perfect play IS a >draw. This is not proven, but it is the most logical conclusion from the data. > >Here is some data from Chessbase's Mega2000 database > >rating of BOTH players # games in mega2000 % of games drawn >>2600 ~12,000 56% >2400-2600 ~169,000 52% >2200-2400 ~176,000 39% >2000-2200 ~36,000 33% > >Similar results have been posted here for comp-comp games, where >a program would play at progressively deeper search depths, as search >time/depth increased (for BOTH sides equaly) the % of drawn games increased >and the percentage of white wins decreased. > >>The draw rate is reflected in a player's rating. If two player's ratings are >>close, then of course they are going to draw more often than not. > >See above for what happens when two closely rated players at ~2100 are compared >to two players closely rated at >2600. > >>At any rate, >>super-GMs might not be seeing anywhere near far enough over the board for the >>outcome of a position to be proved beyond a doubt. > >I'm not claiming that super-GMs are perfect. Only that they are CLOSER to >perfect than 2000 rated players. And that as one gets closer to perfect, >the draw rate goes up .... for BOTH humans AND computers. > >>It was my understanding that there is no evidence of a decline in the rate of >>improvement of a computers' play with increasing ply depth. I.e., a 7-ply >>searcher is expected to have the same rating difference compared to a 6-ply >>searcher as a 13 to a 12, etc. I think this is the established view, although >>I've also heard of (but never directly read) an opposing view. > >There was a very good study posted here by a fellow whos name escapes me right >now (starts with letter H .... Heinz perhaps?). It showed some evidence for a >decline in the rate of improvement in computer play with increased depth ... but >even STRONGER evidence for an increasing number of draws. > >>Maybe someone >>who knows more about this can confirm or deny it. I think the reason why the >>draw rate increases with increasing search time is that the search time per ply >>increases exponentially. So if you are playing at 40/120, chances are that both >>programs will be searching roughly to the same depth, and will not be outdone >>tactically. If you are searching 3 seconds per move, then the probability of >>missing tactics that your opponent misses, or vice-versa, increases. > >Yes! My point exactly. The fewer tactics that get missed the more likely the >game ends in a draw. Please note that what there DOESN'T seem to be any >evidence for is: as depth increases, and mistakes correspondingly decrease, more >wins by white are seen. In fact the opposite occurs, fewer white wins. What >does this strongly imply?? To me it implies that black losing games comes from >black making mistakes. And when black makes a mistake it is often fatal. > >>Just my opinion. I also tend to think Chess is a draw, but piling up anecdotal >>evidence doesn't prove it, whatever Kasparov might say. > >I'll agree, Kasparovs statement is anecdotal. See above for hard eveidence. > >One other piece of subjective/anecdotal data, I am soon to be a 2 time winner of >the US correspondence chess championship. And I have never played a game with a >decisive result where it was not possible to find at least one mistake by the >losing side. In fact even many drawn games have mistakes, they just >aren't (for whatever reason) enough to be fatal. Chess is a draw. > >Robin Smith
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.