Author: karen Dall Lynn
Date: 15:30:14 01/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2002 at 17:53:39, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 25, 2002 at 17:49:13, Albert Silver wrote: >[snip] >>I disagree. Two things: Heinz's study showed that adding plies doesn't linearly >>add strength. Second, I think the comparison with Kasparov is amiss. Kasparov >>does far more than calculate plies, and he would bring that with him in any >>game. You can take a dry middlegame with no magic ruptures or sacrfices, and >>Kasparov might tell you in a second that it is a draw. Why? Not because he >>calculated it to the last ply, but because his judgement and vision allow him to >>make that assessment. I do not believe for one second that perfect play would >>suddenly change that. The perfect player might know that h4 and an enormous >>number of useless moves can or will lead to a loss, but that doesn't mean >>Kasparov will play them. > >I think it's hero worship. If you take a 2400 player against Kasparov, and the >2400 player is going to get slaughtered for the very reasons that you mention. >If you take a 3200 player against Kasparov, Kasparov will look just as bad as >the 2400 player did. Deep Blue, the second version, made Kasparov look almost >human. A computer that searched 500 times deeper would humble Kasparov. I >believe it would win 1000 out of 1000 games with no draws. > >I think most openings have some small bugs in them. Probably mainly >undiscovered and it will take centuries to discover them. A perfect player, by >definition makes no mistakes. If there is a move that is one trillionth of a >pawn better than any others, then he takes it. If there is any way to lose at >all during any move of the game, then it will occur playing against the perfect >player. I think we are better of not understanding the perfect player as an unlimited deep-searcher. Now I see that it is not even inconsistent to say his being a perfect player does not entail he has to win every game. The perfect player would rather be that player that always plays the best possible next move. No matter how he gets to it - I'd say he would be more perfect if he reached out this very best next move by *insight*, sudden compreehension, gestalt vision, not by aritmethizing over plyes. However chess has rules. Some say that the defaut condition of the board before the first white move slightly favors white. Then the perfect player as always making the best possible move has to win all games he is white. But what if he plays black? Perhaps the making of the best possible next black movie is not enough to win... because the other player may be strong enough to sneak with the initial white advantage along all the factual best black moves streaming from the perfect player's mind. Then the perfect player may even lose without scratching his perfection, but rather because of the rules of chess that he is bound to obey otherwise there would be no chess to his being the perfect chess player. But the way a perfect player loses in black may be much more art and vision than the way a strong but not perfect player wins in white. This is a quite fuzzy question, full of subtle sides. Karen
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.