Author: Robin Smith
Date: 11:35:31 12/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 14, 2000 at 02:08:13, Peter Kappler wrote: >On December 13, 2000 at 23:07:25, Michael Neish wrote: > >>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. > > >You're probably thinking of Ernst Heinz's self-play experiments with Fritz. His >results (based on thousands of games) strongly suggested that the benefit of an >extra ply diminishes with increasing search depth. Yes! That is the one I was thinking of. It showed a diminishing return at increased depth. And it showed even MORE evidence for an increasing draw rate at increasing depth. > >(FWIW, this "diminishing return" seems completely obvious to me, and I'm always >surprised that this topic is controversial...) If perfect chess is a draw, then diminishing return MUST occur at some point. I think the cintersting question is when does it occur, not if. Robin Smith
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.