Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 09:40:41 02/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 27, 2002 at 12:19:35, Uri Blass wrote: >>>If it is deterministic, it will in principle lose all matches after it has lost >>>just one, this will not happen to a random program. >> >>No >>It is not going to lose all matches because not everybody tries to repeat wins. Of cause not, people are not like that, thats why I said "in principle" :) >>The random player does not try to repeat wins so it is not going to lose matches >>against this player. >> >>There are also humans who do not try to repeat wins against deterministic >>programs because they find it boring. >> >>Uri > >I can add that even not deterministic players may get 0% if they always fall in >the same kind of trap. > >The opening book and the learning of the chess programs of today may not be >enough to score more than 0% against the perfect player because there is finite >number of book lines and the computer has finite memory. > >Uri They _will_ score more than 0% using only random moves, they can do better than that so they will score *much* more, I believe you wrote that yourself somewhere. It's pure probability, it is only because the numbers are so high that people believe it is impossible. It will not be impossible to draw against perfect play since chess _is_ limited, there are only so many different games that can be played, lets say that number is X, and the number of drawn games for black against perfect white play is Y, then even with random moves black will score Y points (or half points) per X games! This means the perfect player has a limited elo, it cannot be any different IMHO. Call me naive, but I believe Super GMs can do much better than random moves ;) -S.
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.