Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 20:07:18 06/09/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 09, 1999 at 16:01:13, blass uri wrote: >I think that in most of the positions there is more than one perfect move > >For example it is possible that all the legal moves lead to a draw in the >opening position. > >It is possible that a short perfect game is 1.b3 b6 2.Ba3 Ba6 3.Bb2 Bb7 4.Ba3 >Ba6 5.Bb2 Bb7 6.Ba3 Ba6 with draw by repetition > >It is not clear to me that there is a losing blunder in this game. > >Suppose that there is no losing blunder in this game. > >If this is a perfect game then I believe that there are many perfect draws >between GM's and if it is not a perfect game then it is not clear to me what is >your definition for perfect game. These questions are a little too academic for me, but this reminds me of an effect that you will in fact see. If you reach a database drawn ending, any move that maintains the draw is equally good, in some sense, so without some sort of additional heuristic, the side with the advantage will play like an idiot. If chess is in fact a draw, and the game were solved and could be played by one side via a database, the moves made might in fact look very stupid if they aren't supported by some heuristic that tries to maximize chances against a fallible opponent (specifically a human or non-omniscient computer). bruce
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.