Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:42:03 01/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2002 at 18:30:14, karen Dall Lynn wrote: >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. If he/she plays the perfect move, it really does not matter how he/she arrives at the answer. >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? I think he wins all games against an imperfect player. Against a perfect white player, the outcome is unknowns (nobody knows is chess is a win/loss/draw for white). >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. I doubt it. Why can't a 5 year old do this to Anand? >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. Indeed. And (in fact) if he/she is a perfect chess player then... Why not also a perfect gentleman, sometimes giving away a game in the spirit of kindness? We don't have any perfect players, nor are we likely to come across any. But it does make for interesting debate.
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.