Author: Robin Smith
Date: 12:15:14 12/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 14, 2000 at 05:11:53, David Rasmussen wrote: >On December 13, 2000 at 19:26:20, Robin Smith wrote: > >>On December 13, 2000 at 13:33:55, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>On December 13, 2000 at 12:50:16, walter irvin wrote: >>> >>>>would most people considder chess to be solved if a computer had an oppening >>>>database that always left the computer +2.50 when it was out of book and not >>>>ever permitting the blocking of position??? with best play does anyone believe >>>>that black does not lose ?? also if 100% represents the total number of legal >>>>positions then what % make up positions that could SAFELY be reached vs strong >>>>opposition ???(3% perhaps)and if that is the case then should that not be the >>>>positions to solve??? >>> >>>There is no guarantee that this would solve chess, but the odds would be high >>>that there is at least one forced win if white can force a +2.5 computer >>>evaluation from the root. >> >>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. >> >>Robin Smith > >Many twoplayer zerosum games with perfect information have game trees that are >dominated by draws close to the winning lines. Connect 4 is a win for white with >best play, but with slightly less perfect play, it's a draw. There are many more >draws, than wins. So unless players play perfect, in practice, there is a 55% >win rate for white, as in chess. Forget about the 55% win rate for white. What happens when weak connect 4 players play each other. And what happens when stronger connect 4 players play each other. And what happens when "world class" connect 4 players play each other. I don't know, but I would bet money that as the strength of the players increases, the percentage of wins for the first player also goes up. > >You have to remember that there may, in theory, only be 1 perfectly winning line >for white, to make chess a win for white. This is NOT true. Black has many choices too. Let's asume for the sake of argument that white DOES have a win. And lets assume that the only forced win comes from 1.e4 (I'm an e4 player). This would have to mean the black losses after 1....e5, after 1....e6 after 1....c5 after 1....c6 after 1....Nf6 etc. This hardly means that there would only have to be ONE winning line. There would have to by MANY, even after only move 1. Add in blacks choices on move 2, 3 etc and you get a very large tree. I would not be surprised if SOME major opening, or even a couple, eventually turned out to be lost for black. But I don't buy that they ALL lose. >If this is the case, and people >haven't found this line, you're not going to see this in practical results. There are MANY lines. Black has MANY choices. Chess is not as constrained as connect 4. >My personal belief is that chess is a win for white. No one can prove you wrong, but what data drives your belief? I have explained what data drives mine. And I doubt you could find many strong chess players who agree with you. 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.