Author: Janosch Zwerensky
Date: 13:54:28 10/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
>That is even if it was possible for a >machine to play absolutely perfect chess (i.e. 32-man tablebases!) a human GM >could still draw with the White pieces by refusing to undertake anything even >remotely resembling playing for a win by employing a supercautious approach. I think this would come down to the playing style of the perfect player. I'd expect the drawing path for chess to be narrow enough to allow a very aggressive perfect player to win 10-0 with black against even the best humans. I do however not have much reasoning to offer in favor of this belief, I'd have to concede (though humans have clearly over-estimated drawing chances at least in a couple of endgames before they were solved by retroanalysis). On a sidenote, I wonder how high a top GM who has experience in advanced chess would win over an "unarmed" world champion if he were allowed to consult a top-end computer during the game. It wouldn't be 10-0, but I guess they would be ahead clearly. >Anyway, because of the above there's never going to be a 10-0 or 20-0 defeat of >a human world champion especially since 32-man tablebase are impossible (it's >hard to see how some 10 to the 42nd power number of positions could ever be >stored and recalled). I don't think we can *really* prove that OTB tournament time control perfect play isn't doable with the right programming on currently available standard PC hardware (no, I don't believe this of course, but I do doubt that you'd need to either analyze or store *all* of these 10^42 positions to achieve perfect play). Regards, Janosch
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.