Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Maximum ELO

Author: KarinsDad

Date: 21:21:30 06/08/99

Go up one level in this thread


On June 08, 1999 at 23:50:14, Peter Kappler wrote:

[snip]
>
>There is no question that Garry makes mistakes in his games - I didn't mean to
>imply that he is anywhere close to playing perfect chess.
>
>The key question is how wide is the drawing margin in chess?  There are
>countless material-down endings that are drawn, and we all have seen games where
>one side has a nagging edge for the entire game but it isn't quite enough to
>convert to a win.

However, we do not know whether the "nagging edge" advantages wouldn't convert
to easy wins with a perfect tablebase. There are many endings which the best
endgame GMs in the world thought were wins or draws (after a lot of analysis)
and the endgame tables proved that the result was different than expected. If
this could occur repeatedly with 4 and 5 piece endgames, why would you think
that 32 piece tablebases would not immediately slam even the most subtle of
mistakes (let alone multiple subtle mistakes made throughout an entire game)?

Just due to the SHEER complexity of chess, it seems that no human could ever
compete against a perfect tablebase. I guess the reason this seems obvious to me
(regardless of whether it is correct) is that I have a theory that when humans
play against each other, they accidentally fall into inferior or superior
positions. In other words, a computer may see that a given move has a tactical
mistake 14 ply down, but a human does not see it. He looks down 10 ply and sees
no problem and in fact, may think that he is winning. A few moves later, his
opponent suddenly finds himself in a winning position and does not even realize
how he got there. Computers have this same problem. Their evaluation says that
they are up a pawn and within 5 moves for each side, the winning side is
suddenly losing.

With a perfect tablebase looking down 150 ply, I can conceive that even opening
moves which are perfectly valid or strong right now could be proven to be
flawed.

Does this make sense?

KarinsDad :)



This page took 0.03 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.