Author: Graham Laight
Date: 04:14:44 05/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 18, 2001 at 00:27:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >I am reminded of a story: > >A young kid walks in after school one day and says "Dad, can you explain the >difference between theory and reality? We were discussing this in school today >and I simply didn't get the difference." > >The dad thinks for a few minutes, then says "Son, go into the kitchen and ask >your mother if she would have sex with the mailman for $1,000,000.00." > >The young kid walks away puzzled, but does as his dad suggested, and asks >his mother the question. > >She thinks for a couple of minutes and says "Yes I would." > >The young kid returns to his dad and says "Dad, I asked her, and she said 'yes', >but I don't see what this has to do with theory and reality..." > >The dad explains, "Son, based on that answer I can determine two things: (1) in >theory, we are millionaires; (2) in reality, your mother is a slut." > >:) > >Computers are real, not theory. Alpha/Beta is O(W^D) not O(1). > >Let the theorists spend their money and develop their O(1) algorithms. :) I could use this same story to support the case that chess is already solved "beyond reasonable doubt", and is, with best play from both sides, a draw. Clearly, as chess play gets better, players (human and computer) are finding it more and more difficult to obtain a win against opposition of equal strength. To me, it looks quite likely that around 3500 Elo (USCF scale), players will be "unbeatable" - so there can never be a 4000 Elo player. If you are going to say that chess's ultimate result cannot be "proven" without crunching out every possible game, then yes - it's difficult to argue with that. But, as a pragmatist who believes in "reality" (like the gentleman in your story), I have to say that the chances of chess being a forced win for white are diminishing rapidly. It's becoming more and more difficult for top players to find a way to beat their opponents. I'd also use the "aliens" argument about the forced wins - "if they exist, why can't we see them?". Everyone who's read books on chaos/complexity, or who's studied encryption, will know that it's extremely difficult to design a complex system where the complexity, at some level, doesn't self negate. Chess wasn't designed for the purpose of being incredibly complex - it's quite fortunate for the game that it's survived this far without the results converging nearly 100% onto either a win or a draw. It's "possible" that chess is a win for white - in which case, the graph of Elo level against draws, which from 2200 (USCF) upwards rises very rapidly, will level off and eventually start to fall again. I think that chess is a draw beyond reasonable doubt, and I'd be happy to bet anyone at 11/1 odds, that chess is a draw in the following way: You send me a bottle of champagne. If, over a period of 3 years, there is a sustained and continuing decline in the proportion of draws at the top level of chess, I'll send you a CRATE of champagne. Happy drinking! -g
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.