Author: Michael Neish
Date: 20:07:25 12/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 2000 at 19:26:20, Robin Smith wrote: >The likelyhood of chess being a win for white, with perfect play from both >sides, is very low. This is born out by computer-computer games, where the draw >percentage increases as search depth/time increases and also by the fact that >super GM vs. super GM games have a much higher draw rate than games by lower >rated players. In both cases as playing strength increases the percentage of >draws also increases. Strong evidence that chess is a draw. Also, in decisive >games one almost invariably finds that one of the players either made a mistake >or mistakes, or at the very least took unneccesary risks. And most strong >chesspayers believe a perfectly played game should end in a draw. When Kasparov >was once asked why he did not win a particular game he replied "Chess is a draw, >no?". >So, there will NEVER be any computer opening database, no matter how big, where >computers (playing white) think the 1st position out of book is always at least >+2.50 for the computer .... unless the computer has a seriously flawed >evaluation, in which case it will hardly mean chess is solved. > With all due respect, the points you make in your post, if correct (and some I think are debatable), merely suggest that Chess might be a draw, and do not prove it. They do not justify the strong conclusion you make at the end. The draw rate is reflected in a player's rating. If two player's ratings are close, then of course they are going to draw more often than not. At any rate, super-GMs might not be seeing anywhere near far enough over the board for the outcome of a position to be proved beyond a doubt. It was my understanding that there is no evidence of a decline in the rate of improvement of a computers' play with increasing ply depth. I.e., a 7-ply searcher is expected to have the same rating difference compared to a 6-ply searcher as a 13 to a 12, etc. I think this is the established view, although I've also heard of (but never directly read) an opposing view. Maybe someone who knows more about this can confirm or deny it. I think the reason why the draw rate increases with increasing search time is that the search time per ply increases exponentially. So if you are playing at 40/120, chances are that both programs will be searching roughly to the same depth, and will not be outdone tactically. If you are searching 3 seconds per move, then the probability of missing tactics that your opponent misses, or vice-versa, increases. Just my opinion. I also tend to think Chess is a draw, but piling up anecdotal evidence doesn't prove it, whatever Kasparov might say. Cheers, Mike.
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.