Author: Tony Werten
Date: 02:50:23 01/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2003 at 10:58:11, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On January 08, 2003 at 09:33:04, S. Loinjak wrote: > >>I'm not sure how the complete game theoretical tree of chess looks like but I've >>got the folowing ideas about it. > >>From correspondence chess I know that high search depths (e.g 24 ply in middle >>game with still 20 men on the board) enable you to start optically very very >>risky looking attacks where the initiative gain can compensate a considerable >>amount of material over a long time. > >that is however not near the theoretical number of board positions. in my own >games (i am FIDE master means >= 2300 FIDE : like 2500 USCF) i also can >sometimes make up for big material. However in perfect chess that is far more >complicated with exception of reaching strategical goals from opening. We do not >talk however about more than the material that's on the board. After a few >captures of course the number of positions go down bigtime. > >the problem of the number of theoretic positions is that most positions are >possible with the entire set of pieces on the board, whereas the reality is that >you directly swap a pawn or so in most openings. > >If you do not swap the pawns run against each other which limits the number of >possibilities also considerable. > >10^43 which is last calculated number is not near the real truth simply. > >there is so many nonsense positions reachable with a full board of pieces >whereas usually they stay on the same half of the board. My pieces on my side of >the board and the opponent his own. at the 4th and 5th rank usually both have >some material mixed and there is very little pieces of mine inside the opponent >positions. > >That limits the number of possibilities by magnitudes already. Getting down from >10^43 to 10^38 is really a peanut with such rules which are never hard rules. > >the difference between optimal chess and normal chess is very similar to each >other. The difference between normal chess and theoretic possible positions is >*completely* different. You can take this to an extreme. Suppose, in chess the one who gets a pawn on e4 wins. State space and complexity values are the same, yet the game would be trivial. Tony > >>Therefor I 'feel' that optimal chess might be by far different from 'normal' >>human chess. Maybe it'll be full of extreme attacks like Nezhmetdinov used to >>play (the one who outcombined M. Tal in his [Tals!] best days - even Tal was >>proud of those losses). Of course the main variation could look very >>conventional and lifeless as maybe both colors are forced to act extremely >>prophylactically to avoid a 'perfect' attact. >> >>Therefor I could imagine (but I'm not sure about it) that there are lines in the >>perfect chess tree (containing the main variation(s) and at least one refutation >>[not necessarily the strongest one] for each suboptimal move) which are highly >>material imbalanced over a long time until mate or draw is forced. >> >> >>Sini
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.