Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 06:27:03 01/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2002 at 09:07:51, Albert Silver wrote: >>>>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. > >Well, a few things come to mind. One is that there would be more than one >correct move to hit on. Yes, and that why I rephrased it to be a *correct* move rather than *the best* move, by *correct* I mean a move that isn't losing. >Second that I wasn't aware that his chances changed with >each move, so I don't think that the longer the game the worse his chances. Give >a 2800 player a dead equal dry game and I don't think he will suddenly be in >danger of losing just because it can take 40 moves to trade off the pieces and >pawns and play the endgame to the end. There is more to chess than probability. > > Albert What I meant was, that at every move he has a 5% chance of _not choosing the correct move_, ie. he "blunders" by playing inaccurate. That is an average percentile taken out of the blue of cause, but the tablebase test could give us a hint whether we are talking 95% or 50%, it would allow us to calculate the rating of a perfect player, which was the goal I believe. -S.
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.