Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 05:54:10 01/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2002 at 08:41:09, Albert Silver wrote:
>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
You could interpet in an similar way; there is a 50% chance of the 2800 chooses
a move that is *good enough*.
It was just an estimate, probably way off :)
Suppose that a *correct* move is done with 95% certainty (on average) and that
the average game length is only 60 moves, then he has a 0.95^60 = 4.6% chance of
a draw!
This is perhaps more realistic?
-S.
>>
>>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.