Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 09:36:21 06/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 10, 1999 at 12:03:28, KarinsDad wrote: >On June 09, 1999 at 19:24:15, Peter Kappler wrote: > >>On June 09, 1999 at 16:10:36, KarinsDad wrote: >> >>>I also predict that if a program ever does solve the game (an extremely unlikely >>>occurance even assuming the most theoretical of computation possibilities), that >>>white has a forced win. The reason: White has the first move and Black will >>>always be playing catchup (in a perfect game). >>> >>>KarinsDad :) >> >> >>I recently attended a talk given by Kasparov at Stanford University, where he >>addressed this very question. >> >>His answer was something along the lines of "There is no question that chess is >>a draw, assuming best play by both sides." >> >>If Kasparov feels that strongly about this, then it is almost pointless for us >>"mortals" to debate it further, as Garry's opinion is probably as close the to >>the truth as we can get... >> >> >>--Peter > >Many powerful GMs have spent many hours analyzing endgames and have said that a >given position was a win. When tablebases came out, it was suddenly shown that >the position was a draw or a loss. > >GMs (including Garry) are not infallible. Nor is there absolute knowledge in the >field of chess. Of course not. > >Experts used to think that the world was flat. > >Experts used to think that you could predict the future with chicken entrails. > >Experts used to think (and some still do) that a big bang occurred. > >Garry may be correct. He may also be incorrect. There is no way to know. But >unless Garry can come up with some supporting evidence, his opinion is no better >than anyone else's on a game as complex as chess (remember, that the "experts" >said that you would fall off the edge of the world if you sailed too far). I must disagree. Garry's opinion *is* better than anyone else's. He is the best player on the planet -- quite possibly the best player who has ever lived. He has insights into the game that you and I can't even comprehend. It doesn't mean he is right, but it does mean his opinion is the best information we have. As for "supporting evidence", I didn't get to ask him for any, but here is what I think: In 13 years of tournament chess, I have probably analyzed over one thousand annotated games, and I have *never* seen a game that was won without a *clear* mistake by the losing side. I *have* seen countless games that were drawn even though one player made a significant mistake and was worse throughout the game. As you say, we will never know for certain. It would be interesting to poll a large number of GM-level players with this question. --Peter >is just not enough information to have any more than an opinion. > >The order of magnitude difference between the number of positions checked so far >in 3, 4, 5, and 6 piece tablebases and the number of positions in a >comprehensive 32 piece tablebase is beyond human comprehension. If GMs can be >incorrect on 4 piece positions, what is to say that they would not also be >incorrect on the 32 piece starting position? The game is just TOO complex to >know with any certainty. > >Garry may be correct that with best play on both sides, that a draw must occur. >However, it could just be that the small advantage that white has of getting the >first move will take 270 moves to be realized in a game with best play by both >sides (or, to keep Dann happy, it takes 270 moves to put White in zugzwang). >However, such an obscure advantage would be impossible to detect, even by >someone of Kasparov's ability. Garry may think that the game is a draw with best >play just because he cannot see the 539 ply way to win. We will never know. > >KarinsDad :)
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.