Author: Dan Ellwein
Date: 15:36:19 02/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2000 at 12:42:05, blass uri wrote: >On February 15, 2000 at 12:12:56, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On February 15, 2000 at 11:49:41, Dan Ellwein wrote: >> >>>On February 15, 2000 at 10:02:40, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>>On February 15, 2000 at 09:25:02, Côme wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 15, 2000 at 08:53:27, blass uri wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On February 15, 2000 at 07:16:12, Côme wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On February 15, 2000 at 06:16:27, blass uri wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On February 15, 2000 at 05:51:31, stuart taylor wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I wonder if it will eventually be discovered that chess is not absolute, >>>>>>>>>and that a human will therefore always be able to beat a machine by playing >>>>>>>>>exactly against the weaker points of that particular machines style-everything >>>>>>>>>else being to perfection? >>>>>>>>> Maybe chess isn't an exacting art-absolutely? >>>>>>>>> Stuart Taylor >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>If the machine has no weak points then it is impossible to play exactly against >>>>>>>>the weaker points of the machine and there is no reason to assume that it is >>>>>>>>impossible to do a machine with no weak points. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Today there is no machine with no weaks points and there is no machine that can >>>>>>>>pass the turing test(every machine can do positional mistakes that I do not >>>>>>>>expect humans even with 1800 elo rating to do) but it is practically impossible >>>>>>>>for most of the humans to play exactly against the weaker points of the machine >>>>>>>>because you cannot go practically to the positions that the machine does not >>>>>>>>understand. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Hello Uri, >>>>>>>I don't agree with you Uri ! >>>>>>>It's not so hard to play against weaks points of machine ! >>>>>>>Best Regards >>>>>>>Alexandre Côme >>>>>> >>>>>>Hello Alexandre, >>>>>>If it is not so hard then what is the reason that these machines can beat more >>>>>>than 99% of the humans with rating above 1600? >>>>>> >>>>>>There are positions when the machines are stupid and humans knows about them(for >>>>>>example programs do not understand fortress positions when one side has a big >>>>>>material advantage) but you usually cannot go for these position in >>>>>>a practical game. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>Hello Uri, >>>>>Ok you must be stronger than 1600 to play against weaks points of machines. :-) >>>>>There are really a lot of positions when the machines are stupid and IMHO >>>>>machines will not be never stronger than humans. >>>>>Best Regards >>>>>Alexandre Côme >>>> >>>>I am stronger than 1600 and my rating is 2025 but even players with 2300 get >>>>less than 50% against the machines. >>>> >>>>If it was easy to play against the weak points of the machines they could win >>>>the machines. >>>> >>>>I agree that there are a lot of positions when the machines are stupid but >>>>I do not agree that machines will never be stronger than humans in these >>>>positions. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>chess is 'absolute' in the sense that you have a finite amount of space - 64 >>>squares... >>> >>>and a finite amount of material - 32 pieces... >>> >>>finite times finite (usually) equals finite... >>> >>>computers have not (yet) reached this finite-ness... >> >> What I was wondering was something else. Perhaps there is no such thing as >>perfect chess play in the sense that it cannot possibly be beaten by someone who >>has prepared himself perfectly to play against the other persons style. >>We don't know that yet, but I don't know if many people have ever thought >>of it either. > >We know that there is a strategy to get at least 50% against everyone. >We do not know the stratefy but we know that there is a strategy to do it. > >people thought about the problem of games in mathematics. > > >> Why for example does the (possibly) greatest ever chess playing entity >>Kasparov have to prepare so much for every opponent? Can't he just play perfect >>chess? > >He cannot because he does not know the best move in every position. >He also wants to win and sometimes for practical reasons perfect chess does not >give the best chance to win. > >There are also many possibilities to play perfect chess and the probability to >win is not the same in all of them. > >> Could it not be possible that chess is only 99% or 99.999% exact, and >>ocassionaly the most perfect chess player-who has not yet existed-can also >>lose a game since there might be weak aspects to any style-even at perfection >>level? >> S.Taylor > >No >Chess is 100% exact. >There are clear rules and every position has a clear result(a draw or a win for >white or a win for black) if both sides do not do mistakes. > >Uri maybe 'perfect chess' can be thought of in the same way as a 'perfect life'... both are full of 'endless possibilities'... here-in we experience the beauty of life and chess...
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.