Author: Albert Silver
Date: 05:41:09 01/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2002 at 06:50:45, Sune Fischer wrote:
>On January 25, 2002 at 17:25:39, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>On January 25, 2002 at 17:07:46, Albert Silver wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>>3.If the rating of perfect player is say x ;what would be the rating of
>>>>>the stongest computer player ever(that is the best chessprogram that can be
>>>>>ever contructed useing computer technology) .It would be x-?.Or would it be x?
>>>>
>>>>It would be zero, unless it was perfect also. The perfect player would win
>>>>every game and get all the ELO points. The imperfect player would lose all the
>>>>games and get an ELO of zero.
>>>
>>>Maybe. The imperfect player may not find all the best moves, but that doesn't
>>>mean that all the moves it plays are losing.
>>
>>Being able to see 5900 plies ahead means that any microscopic slip along the way
>>by the opponent will bring a loss if it can bring a loss. I hypothesize that a
>>2800 player will score zero points against a perfect player. Playing around the
>>clock, perhaps once in a trillion centuries, the imperfect player might gain 1/2
>>of a point. Once in a trillion millenia maybe a full point. But it won't be
>>enough to pull his ELO above zero.
>
>Realisticly a 2800 player probably has a branchfactor of no more than 2, ie. he
>is able to always choose the best or second best move (on average).
>If the average game lasts 100 moves, then that is still 10^30 plausible games of
>which only a handfull will be good enough against *perfect* play.
>Poor odds I agree with you :)
You're presuming that anything other than one move, the best move, will lose
forcibly to best play. I believe that more than one move is available to a
non-loss thus perfect play would be often a flip of the coin between a few
(perhaps three as I hypothesized in another post in the thread) moves. I have
seen no evidence to suggest there is only one path to a non-loss and that a
single path of perfect play is needed to avoid it. Everything we know whether
from personal research or from the current tablebases suggests there are several
paths. If this were accepted to be true, the question would be whether the 2800
player is incapable of hitting on _one_ of these non-losing moves (according to
perfect play).
Albert
>
>Maybe in the coming years we will see exactly how close the 2800 is to perfect
>play, if it is possible for computers to crush 2800 guys the same way 2800
>players crush 2400 players then it seems there is still some way to go.
>
>-S.
>
>>I further hypothesize that every chess game ever played to date has a mistake in
>>it (and by both parties if at least 2 ply are completed). Does not mean that we
>>can find it.
>>
>>Of course, if it turns out that 1. d4 always wins, and there are games that go:
>>1. d4 {black resigns} 1-0
>>Then I'm wrong.
>>;-)
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.