Author: Graham Laight
Date: 03:03:11 05/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
I still say it's quicker and easier to draw a graph of strength of players
plotted against proportion of draws.
Since I don't have a copy of chessbase, the graph below is based on guesswork
rather than actual study - but here's a quick example of what it would probably
look like:
Percentage Of Draws
100 | *
| *
| *
| *
| *
75 | *
| *
| *
| *
| *
50 | *
| *
| *
| *
| *
25 | *
|*
|
|
|
0 |
------------------------------------------------------
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Elo Rating
If this were accurate, the maximum possible Elo rating would be 3500, because
above this level, almost all games would end in draws.
From this, one can calculate when computers will be able to play at the maximum
level. If normal (ie not Deeper Blue!) computers advance at about 100 Elo every
5 years, and they are currently at 2600, then they need another 900 Elo to play
perfect chess - which they will be doing in 45 years.
And what ply depth will be needed to achieve this? If they advance 1 ply every
3 years, then they will advance 15 ply in 45 years.
So - in conclusion - to solve chess (or at least to play "perfect" chess),
computers need to search 15 ply deeper than they do now (and probably increase
their knowledge at the same rate as they're currently doing).
Again - all the figures in the previous 3 paragraphs are my guesses rather than
rigorous studies. Anybody who knows the numbers more accurately is welcome to
correct the figures.
-g
On May 15, 2001 at 01:00:00, Uri Blass wrote:
>On May 15, 2001 at 00:30:39, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On May 15, 2001 at 00:13:13, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>If you have enough memory 2^3000 is not relevant because the relevant number is
>>>the number of logical chess positions that is less than 10^50 and in this game
>>>even smaller than chess.
>>
>>First, we argue that everything is O(1) (in theory). Now we are on what are
>>logical positions and what are not (again in theory).
>>
>>But in reality, or in practice, we are not able to discern the difference
>>between logical and illogical moves. Which is why we have to do a tree
>>search in the first place. We will _never_ be able to exclude illogical
>>moves from the tree, any more than we will ever be able to search to the
>>end of the game and find out whether it is a forced win or a draw.
>
>We can use a short search to a small fixed depth at every node in order to
>define positions that are a win without doubt.
>We can also use evaluation to see that positions are win without doubt(if one
>side has only a king and the opponent has two connected passed pawns you can
>find by evaluation if the opponent has stalemate chances or if the king is close
>enough to capture the pawns.
>
>If you find by evaluation that the king is not close enough to capture the pawns
>and that there are no stalemate chances then it is a win without doubt.
>
>It is only one example and there are a lot of positions that can be evaluated as
>a win without doubt.
>
>You can define rules that it is illegal to go to these positions so you get less
>positions.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>If you try to construct the 32 piece tablebases in the game when it is illegal
>>>to play moves that give the opponent a simple win then it is enough.
>>
>>
>>How would you determine that? IE how can you determine a position is a "simple
>>win" without searching to see that result?
>
>I explained it see above.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>You can also ignore the 50 move rule for the case that you prove that chess is a
>>>draw.
>>>
>>>In this case proving that there is no win in 6500 without the 50 move rule is
>>>enough to prove that there is no mate in chess with the 50 move rule because
>>>every game of 13000 plies is a draw by the 50 move rule.
>>>
>>>In this case the number of iterations is not a problem.
>>>I believe that chess even without the 50 move rule is a draw.
>>>
>>>My idea to solve chess in 2050 or 2100 is the following idea:
>>>
>>>1)Generate all the leagl positions in the game when the sides have no right to
>>>let the opponent a win without doubt(you should construct an evaluation to
>>>define a win without doubt and it should be something that you can compute in a
>>>relatively short time like 0.01 seconds on today's hardware
>>>
>>>In order to do it you generate all the possible positions in games of x plies
>>>when x<13000(the number can be even slightly smaller than 13000 but I am lazy to
>>>calculate or to find it)
>>>
>>>I do not know if the number of these positions is smaller or bigger than 10^25
>>>It may be 10^30 and may be 10^20.
>>
>>For a full game, W averages 38. Which means your W^13000 is simply beyond
>>imagination. Even storing one gigabyte per atom in universe matter.
>
>I ignore the history in my definition of position so it is not W^13000 and it is
>clearly less than 10^50 and it may be 10^30 or even 10^20
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>It means that if you are optimistic you may get 10^20 possible numbers when
>>>everyone of them is of 192 bits or even less bits if there is a simple way to
>>>represent chess positions by numbers.
>>
>>I don't see any possible way to get 10^20 that would mean that there is a
>>forced win inside 15 plies or so. I don't believe it.
>
>I am talking about the number of positions when a position only includes the
>pieces on the board,right to castle,en passant options,side to move.
>
>If you search 15 plies you get less positions and you do not need to search the
>same position twice(you do not search 1.e4 e5 2.d4, 1.d4 e5 2.e4 and 1.e3 e6
>2.e4 e5 3.d4 but only one of these games).
>
>Uri
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.