|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 40 OF 79 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Nov-30-06 | | TefthePersian: There is no way a human can calculate like a computer, we aren't built the same. There is no chance of a human ever, ever, ever playing the way a computer does. We can learn from them, but not play like them. WannaBe: Chess has been theoretically drawn forever. It's no suprise. Holding the draw is the problem. Regardless, a game that isn't a draw would either have to be very complicated (so the game isn't boring, with one side always winning) or ...I can't think of anything else. Non-drawn games are unfair, thus probably not fun to play. |
|
| Nov-30-06 | | s4life: <WannaBe: Chess has been theoretically drawn forever. It's no suprise> Since chess hasn't been solved, one cannot say anything about the outcome of it, theoretically speaking. Hint: take a look a the go rules. |
|
| Nov-30-06 | | TefthePersian: <s4life>: "Since chess hasn't been solved, one cannot say anything about the outcome of it, theoretically speaking. Hint: take a look a the go rules." Possibilities are finite, so the outcomes are finite. If by rules you mean zugzwang positions? These wouldn't be reached with perfect play by my way of thinking. |
|
| Nov-30-06 | | mr j: <WannaBe: chess will be proven to be a drawn game, if played correctly> i agree! we are all just playing a complex game of tic tac toe! |
|
| Nov-30-06 | | s4life: <TefthePersian>
I meant it's likely that with perfect play, white would win regardless because it has the first move, just as in go. The fact that chess hasn't been solved means that theoretically speaking, nothing can be said about the natural outcome of the game. |
|
| Nov-30-06 | | TefthePersian: <s4life>: This just doesn't seem likely, does it? The first move advantage seems to be minimal, given all the theoretical knowledge we have thus far. If you say that nothing can be said about the perfect outcome of the game, then you are also making the statement, "it's likely that with perfect play, white would win regardless," rather out of place, don't you think? |
|
| Nov-30-06 | | ganstaman: Of course, we don't currently know the answer. However, something important to recognize is that no matter how illogical it may seem, and no matter how many drawn lines there are, there needs to be just 1 forced win from the start for chess as a whole to be a forced win (for whoever). Even if we can't explain what it is about the starting position at makes the win occur, its existence is explanation enough. That said, it could just as easily be a forced draw. |
|
| Dec-01-06 | | s4life: <TefthePersian: This just doesn't seem likely, does it? The first move advantage seems to be minimal, given all the theoretical knowledge we have thus far> I don't know about that.. our theoretical knowledge about chess is rather very limited, when you put it in perspective. <If you say that nothing can be said about the perfect outcome of the game, then you are also making the statement, "it's likely that with perfect play, white would win regardless," rather out of place, don't you think?> You are reading it totally wrong:
It's likely that white could win regardless, just as it's likely that the final result would be a draw or (less likely) a black win... we just don't know. |
|
| Dec-01-06 | | s4life: <ganstaman> The existence of a forced win for either side, from move 1 to finish, would imply that chess is solved... which is clearly not the case. |
|
| Dec-01-06 | | ganstaman: <s4life: <ganstaman> The existence of a forced win for either side, from move 1 to finish, would imply that chess is solved... which is clearly not the case.> This is not a true statement. Chess being solved is all about us knowing the 'perfect' game and how to handle all non-perfect moves. The existence of this perfect game cares not if we know of it. |
|
| Dec-01-06 | | s4life: <gangstaman> But your statement goes beyond mere existence of a perfect game (we know such game exists, since chess is decidable)... it also says something about the outcome of such a game (either a black or white win). which is exactly what chess being solved means, a perfect game exists AND we know its outcome. |
|
| Dec-01-06 | | ganstaman: <s4life> You said that "the existence of a forced win ... would imply that chess is solved." Is that what you actually meant to say, or am I misinterpreting it somehow? Also, how is this a response to my earlier post about the outcome possibly being different than our expectations? Or do you just enjoy talking to me (I enjoy the conversation, so it's all good)? |
|
| Dec-01-06 | | s4life: <ganstaman>
lots of misinterpretations going on... I was referring to practically solvable or computable when talking about chess. I rather pass on the discussion though. |
|
| Dec-01-06 | | spinal pat: We are talking about a savant here tef. In some cases the brains of those people are only good for 1 specific action. It's like they can use the brain like a computer (computer-like accuracy, speed, ...). So if a savant with specific interests is prone to understand these algorithms there is a chance he could beat rybka. And this is also without understanding chess! like a computer. And still a human brain 'an sich' still beats every computer hands down because it handels data in a paralel (sp?) way. Maybe and I mean maybe when quantum computers (which will take years and years and decades and some more years...) are going to be mainstream the brain could be beaten in its possibilities. |
|
| Dec-01-06 | | whatthefat: <spinal pat>
Considering that engines analyze (i.e., apply their algorithm) to around 1 million positions per second, I think it's clearly beyond the capabilities of any human, even an autistic savant. Remember that the algorithm includes all sorts of things, like king safety, mobility of pieces, placement of pieces, pawn structure, etc. Perhaps a savant could apply the algorithm to a single position very quickly, like inside 1 second. But applying it to a million a second is patently ludicrous. Then there's the issue of actually training a savant anyway... |
|
| Dec-01-06 | | spinal pat: Indeed you can't really train a savant. But if his particular field of intrest lies in chess/chessalgorithms, I would think it would be at least interesting in what the capabilities would be. Don't underestimate the human brain, why do you think AI isn't that great after what 50 years or so ... Even the most simple things take a @#$%load of data to process. |
|
| Dec-01-06 | | vspatel: Does anyone know how strong is the Rybka 2.1 demo version? Is it stronger than fritz 8? |
|
| Dec-01-06 | | s4life: <Don't underestimate the human brain, why do you think AI isn't that great after what 50 years or so> I can tell you with assurance that the reason has nothing to do with the human brain being able to process more things per second than a computer.. |
|
| Dec-01-06 | | spinal pat: s4life what do you think is the reason. Only because we still don't know how the brain exactly works? |
|
| Dec-02-06 | | crimsontide: Rybka playing like Petrosian in this one..
[Event "Rybka 2.2f mp testing 2"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2006.11.20"]
[Round "23.2"]
[White "Deep Shredder 10 x64 2CPU"]
[Black "Rybka 2.2 mp x64 2CPU w/Fix"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E15"]
[PlyCount "88"]
[EventDate "2006.11.19"]
[Source "Leto"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 Ba6 5. b3 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 Be7 7. Bg2 c6 8.
Bc3 d5 9. Ne5 Nfd7 10. Nxd7 Nxd7 11. Nd2 O-O 12. e4 b5 13. O-O dxc4 14.
bxc4 Nb6 15. Qc2 Nxc4 16. Nxc4 bxc4 17. Rad1 Qc7 18. e5 Rab8 19. Be4 g6 20.
Qd2 Qd7 21. Qe2 Rb6 22. Rfe1 Rfb8 23. Ra1 Bb4 24. Bxb4 Rxb4 25. Red1 Rb2
26. Qf3 R8b6 27. Qa3 h5 28. Rac1 Kg7 29. Qa5 Qe7 30. a3 Bb5 31. a4 Ra6 32.
Qc3 Rb3 33. Qe1 Rxa4 34. Bc2 a5 35. Bxb3 cxb3 36. Qe3 Rb4 37. Rb1 a4 38.
Rb2 Bc4 39. Ra1 Bd5 40. Qd2 Qb7 41. f3 Qb6 42. Kf2 Rxd4 43. Qe3 c5 44. Rab1
Qb4
0-1 |
|
Dec-02-06
 | | Open Defence: the free rybka getting outplayed by Toga II on my puter
[Event "15 Minutes/Game"]
[Site "Engine Match"]
[Date "2006.12.03"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Rybka 1.0 Beta 32-bit"]
[Black "Toga II 1.2.1a"]
[Result "0-1"]
{1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 O-O 7. e3 b6 8. Be2 Bb7 9. Bxf6 Bxf6 10. cxd5 exd5 11. b4 a5 (blitzed out per the opening book) 14. Ne5 (+0.03/13 25s) Qe7 (+0.20/14 28s) 15. Ng4 (+0.23/13 34s) Rd8 (+0.28/13 27s) 16. Bf3 (+0.09/12 44s) Bg5 (+0.28/13 22s) 17. Qc2 (+0.23/12 35s) Ra7 (+0.47/12 40s) 18. Rae1 (+0.15/11 32s) Qd6 (+0.06/13 24s) 19. Ne5 (+0.17/11 15s) Bf6 (0.00/14 16s) 20. Qf5 (+0.03/12 14s) Bxe5 (-0.31/13 14s) 21. dxe5 (-0.06/13 9s) Qe6 (-0.24/16 22s) 22. Qxe6 (-0.10/14 13s) fxe6 (-0.22/16 22s) 23. Bg4 (-0.11/15 25s) Kf7 (-0.24/16 20s) 24. f4 (-0.17/14 26s) Nd7 (-0.19/14 16s) 25. Rd1 (-0.11/13 25s) g6 (-0.21/14 48s) 26. Bf3 (-0.10/12 44s) Ke7 (-0.28/13 14s) 27. Na4 (-0.08/12 16s) Rf8 (-0.27/14 16s) 28. g3 (-0.06/13 16s) g5 (-0.27/13 17s) |
|
Dec-02-06
| | Open Defence: continued ..
29. ♔f2 (+0.01/13 42s) ♖aa8 (-0.26/13 16s) 30. h4 (+0.01/13 20s) ♖h8 (-0.25/13 19s) 31. g4 (+0.04/11 9s) ♖af8 (-0.29/14 15s) 32. ♔g3 (-0.03/11 8s) gxf4+ (-0.24/13 13s) 33. exf4 (+0.09/12 5s) ♖h7 (-0.24/14 14s) 34. ♖de1 (+0.09/12 10s) ♖g7 (-0 16/13 10s) 35. ♖f2 (+0.05/12 13s) ♗a8 (-0.16/13 34s) 36. ♗g2 (+0.08/11 11s) ♖fg8 (-0.16/14 12s) 37. g5 (+0.04/12 9s) ♖f7 (-0.21/13 12s) 38. ♗f3 (0.00/12 18s) hxg5 (-0.21/12 11s) 39. fxg5 (+0.09/12 9s) c4 (-0.04/13 16s) 40. ♖d2 (+0.02/12 8s) ♖gf8 (-0.04/14 13s) 41. ♗d1 (0.00/13 12s) ♖g8 (0.00/12 7s) 42. ♗h5 (+0.01/12 12s) ♖f5 (-0.08/13 50s) 43. ♗g4 (+0.02/12 3s) ♖xe5 (-0.34/12 9s) 44. ♖ee2 (0.00/13 17s) ♔d6 (-0.66/12 7s) 45. ♖c2 (-0.62/13 9s) ♖xe2 (-0.61/12 8s) 46. ♖xe2 (-0.43/15 9s) ♘e5 (-0.72/12 5s) 47. ♘xb6 (-0.60/14 11s) c3 (-0.72/12 5s) |
|
Dec-02-06
| | Open Defence: continued again..
48. ♖c2 (-1.23/15 1:21m) d4 (-1.40/11 6s) 49. ♘xa8 (-1.23/14 6s) ♖xa8 (-1.23/14 7s) 50. ♗h5 (-1.53/13 15s) ♖c8 (-1.45/13 6s) 51. b6 (-1.82/12 3s) ♖b8 (-1.76/12 4s) 52. ♗f3 (-2.52/13 6s) ♖xb6 (-2.02/12 4s) 53. ♗e4 (-2.35/13 3s) ♖b1 (-2.26/14 6s) 54. g6 (-1.66/12 3s) ♖g1+ (-2.26/15 7s) 55. ♖g2 (-1.90/14 3s) ♖xg2+ (-2.05/15 5s) 56. ♔xg2 (-2.16/16 4s) ♔e7 (-2.58/16 5s) 57. ♔f2 (-2.38/16 11s) ♘d7 (-2.98/15 5s) 58. ♔e2 (-2.38/14 2s) ♘c5 (-3.41/14 3s) 59. ♗c2 (-2.85/14 4s) e5 (-.04 60/12 5s) 60. h5 (-2.66/13 2s) e4 (-5.79/12 5s) 61. ♗xe4 (-5.86/14 45s) ♘xe4 (-6.58/12 5s) 62. ♔d3 (-10.13/14 23s) ♘c5+ (-10.37/9 4s) 0-1 |
|
| Dec-02-06 | | THE pawn: <open defence> The free version is really weak. I can beat it with my chessmaster 9000. |
|
| Dec-02-06 | | rover: <spinal pat> I think you may be underestimating today's computers. I heard some savants are very good at arithmetics or even factoring large numbers. Yet my old 1Ghz P3 with a pretty slow algorithm finds every prime number below 1 million in less then a second. I doubt that any human, savant or not, can do that. However if you have any evidence to the contrary, I would be very interested to hear it. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 40 OF 79 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
