Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 09:55:21 01/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2002 at 12:16:52, Uri Blass wrote: >I meant that it is possible that the probability not to blunder is 95% at move >1,2...9,10,11,12,13...40 but the probability not to blunder in all of the first >40 moves is not 0.95^40. > >I admit that I thought about regular games and not about games against the >perfect player(in regular games between kasparov and kramnik if I know that the >sides blundered it means that the position is complicated and the side have good >chance to continue to blunder). > >The problem is that in games against the perfect player there may be only one >blunder that change the theorethic result from draw to a win for the perfect >player so if the probability not to blunder in every move is 0.95 then the >probability not to blunder in the game must be 0.95^n assuming that n is the >number of moves. > >practically I believe that the probability not to blunder is an increasing >function(except the openings when most of the opening lines lead to draw) and if >kasparov played well enough not to blunder in the middle game the probability >for kasparov to play the correct moves in the endgame is bigger. Since we haven't solved the game, we can't really say if 1.d4 is a blunder, but probably there isn't just one perfect game, but many paths that are equally good. Another way we could get the percentage, would be to do a very deep analysis of some super GMs games. Perhaps it is possible to find an improvement every 20th move. These minor inaccuraties would probably be fatal against perfect play, so that would be one way to get a measure. I believe almost every game played so far can be improved if GMs and computers study them close enough, but how frequent will we find improvements thats the question. >practically there are positions when kasparov can be almost sure not to >blunder(for example rook and 3 pawns against rook and 3 pawns in the same side >and even some positions with rook and 2 pawns against rook and 3 pawns in the >same side when one pawn advantage of the perfect player is not enough to win) > >Uri Yes, thats another concern, if Kasparov knew he was up against perfection he would play for a draw rather than a win, so he wouldn't take any chances and maybe get more draws. -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.