On Jan 29, 11:03*pm, wrote:
On Jan 29, 12:48*pm, Sanny wrote:



I am just guessing it may be correct or not.

* So then, you really had no basis for saying "Master level will play
perfect game." In other words, Sanny, you were lying.

Guessing something does not mean lying. There are many things that we
do not know for certain and we guess them. Say after an Exam someone
asks you how was the exam, I say It was good I feel I will get 60%
marks. But then I get 40% marks. It do not mean I was lying.

In Chess who will win can never be said before. There is always scope
of improvvement.

Even deep blue on a supercomputer was beatable. Even Rybka & Fritz get
beaten in some games. But they win most of the time. We can say Fritz
& Rybka as an Example of Perfect Game. Just as I think Master Level &
Advance Level play perfect games.

But that do not mean they will win always.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

On Jan 29, 1:09*pm, Sanny wrote:
On Jan 29, 11:03*pm, wrote:

On Jan 29, 12:48*pm, Sanny wrote:

I am just guessing it may be correct or not.

* So then, you really had no basis for saying "Master level will play
perfect game." In other words, Sanny, you were lying.

Guessing something does not mean lying.

Sanny, the plain fact is that you claimed your program was perfect.
You had absolutely no basis for that -- not even the slightest grounds
for even guessing that it might be. On the contrary, you have on file
hundreds of games proving that it is very imperfect.

Just as I think Master Level &
Advance Level play perfect games.

See? You're still doing it, after admitting you have no basis
whatever for such a claim!

As we say here in the USA, you are talking through your ass.

On Jan 28, 1:22 pm, pialogue wrote:

So, what are your thoughts on "Solving Chess"?

Instead of focusing on draws or perfect defense,
a better approach would be to focus on the idea
of endgame table-bases.

The reason is simple: no matter how deeply
you might *calculate* defenses to various and
sundry attacks, you could never be certain that
there is not a deeper strategy of attack which
has not been anticipated, which can prevail.

A simplified example of this is where, for
many decades, grandmasters preached that
certain positions could not be won-- only to
die and have their great-great-grandchildren
discover they were dead wrong. The strategy
was beyond their grasp, but real nonetheless.

With the endgame table-bases, no such
errors creep in. Sure, there will always be
people who maintain that there are more
data than can be "held" in the molecules of
the "known universe" or whatever, but we've
already seen their kind get trampled under-
foot before, under the heels of technology
and its relentless advance. These small-
minded folks remind me of the old days, of
back when nearly all the pundits screamed
that no chess program would *ever* defeat
a master... later changed to "grandmaster",
for the obvious reasons.

I say that these endgame table-bases
*can* be beefed up more and more, until
they eventually reach a point where they
meet super-engines somewhere in mid
game. Right now, Best Buy sells hard
drives which can hold more than the nay-
sayers said could ever be held, and the
price is within reach of ordinary folks. Ten
years hence, I expect BB to have been
bought out or taken over, but Wal-mart,
Wal-mart will then likely be selling drives
which wirelessly connect to our Apple
computers (yes, APPL) and which can
hold 7, 8, or maybe even 9-man TBs
with no trouble at all.

Given sufficient time, chess will be
solved-- at least to the extent that man
will know the definitive answers to such
questions as "was Bobby Fischer's Bxh2
a losing move, or could he still have
drawn?" And chess engines will be so
strong that the question of \winning will
be moot; the goal of the world's top GMs
will be to somehow squeak out a draw.
There will necessarily be a reversion to
the old days, to the days of Knight or
Rook odds.

Discussions will center around just how
far can a chess program go, in terms of
contempt factors; 2 pawns? Three? Even
more?


-- help bot

First off, the "Sanny/ttk5" exchange appears to be SPAMBOT based and
off-topic. Is there any way to delete those messages or at least ban
Sanny from posting here?

Thank you VERY much for introducing me to the concept of "zugzwang" as
I had never previously considered the possibility that chess was an
inherently flawed game from the very beginning. I feel like I did
when someone introduced me to the concept of oligarchy relative to the
concept of politics. ;o)

Or perhaps the so-called flaw was actually a form of "trap" that you
had to be sure to prepare for and avoid ahead of time? I guess that
is the end result either way, a bummer dynamic for the naive or lesser-
achieved person?

I also get the feeling from the responses above as well as those sent
to me privately that the concept of "perfect" is relative depending
upon a person's personal opinion or frame of perspective. In other
words, in my opinion, there are so many different possibilities for
very good plays in the opening and middle games such that the only
real "perfect" result would be the game ending in a draw period. A
perfect game of defense for black would be to counter or block white's
initial theoretical advantage and black's ability to lure white off of
a previously-planned successful path.

Now obviously I am talking about a perfect game by BOTH players. A
perfect game for either side obviously results in a win and I agree
that a good endgame database, very soon to be a "totalgame" database,
is essential.

Thanks!

In message
,
pialogue writes
First off, the "Sanny/ttk5" exchange appears to be SPAMBOT based and
off-topic. Is there any way to delete those messages or at least ban
Sanny from posting here?

It is a public newsgroup anyone can post here. I find the constant
bitching about alleged USCF misdeeds far more annoying than Sanny YMMV

Thank you VERY much for introducing me to the concept of "zugzwang" as
I had never previously considered the possibility that chess was an
inherently flawed game from the very beginning.

Same with opening theory. Every now and then someone comes up with a new
approach that for a while breaks the previous conventional wisdom.
Finding novelty prepared traps in openings is now key to winning in the
big engine vs engine matches. Offline taking days the engine can prepare
deep lines for the opening book that target known weaknesses in its
opponent (or more accurately believed to be known weaknesses). Typically
this preparation has to be guided by human intervention (at least so
far).

I also get the feeling from the responses above as well as those sent
to me privately that the concept of "perfect" is relative depending
upon a person's personal opinion or frame of perspective. In other

I don't think that at all. If the game is won for white then there is at
least one perfect game where no matter what black does white can force a
win. The trouble is that you may have to explore the entire full depth
of the game tree to prove it.

In real OTB chess games there is an element of bluff and counter bluff.
Some good moves are weaker than perfect but invite an opponent to make a
plausible looking mistake. But a perfect opponent would not be so
distracted by such tricks. Humans are though. Putting a piece down hard
sometimes gives added gravitas to an otherwise ordinary move.

words, in my opinion, there are so many different possibilities for
very good plays in the opening and middle games such that the only
real "perfect" result would be the game ending in a draw period. A
perfect game of defense for black would be to counter or block white's
initial theoretical advantage and black's ability to lure white off of
a previously-planned successful path.

In real play yes, but in game theory the final outcome of a
deterministic game like chess with perfect play is one of win, draw or
lose for white. We just don't know which one it is.

Now obviously I am talking about a perfect game by BOTH players. A
perfect game for either side obviously results in a win and I agree
that a good endgame database, very soon to be a "totalgame" database,
is essential.

Endgame databases attack the problem from the other end. They are
complete and exact and show the number of moves to every final game
state from any given position on the board using up to N=6 men. The
number of states and the size of the database grows alarmingly fast with
N. You can probe these online to see how it works at:

http://www.k4it.de/index.php?topic=egtb&lang=en

You can extend this back a to around 8 men with tools like Freezer
(although its interface takes some getting used to). Freezer souped up a
bit on a 64bit architecture might be OK for some 9 men problems.

Beyond that the sheer size of the databases and the computational effort
to make them means only special cases are ever likely to be studied in
depth.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Just as I think Master Level &
Advance Level play perfect games.

* See? You're still doing it, after admitting you have no basis
whatever for such a claim!

A sentence should be read properly.

I said "Just as I think Master Level & Advance Level play perfect
games".

Here I said "I think" Which means what I think about something. It
does not mean I am going to bet for it just because I think of it.

Here, I am proposing something to have more information so that I can
judge whether I was Correct.

"I think today it will rain" It just means I have a belief that it
will happen. There are chances that I may be wrong. But Still I am
thinking that way. Because the Probablity is more than 50%. I am
proposing something to have more information so that I can judge
whether I was Correct.

I suppose that clears the objective.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

On Feb 3, 1:22*pm, Sanny wrote:
Just as I think Master Level &
Advance Level play perfect games.

* See? You're still doing it, after admitting you have no basis
whatever for such a claim!

A sentence should be read properly.

I said "Just as I think Master Level & Advance Level play perfect
games".

Here I said "I think" Which means what I think about something. It
does not mean I am going to bet for it just because I think of it.

Here, I am proposing something to have more information so that I can
judge whether I was Correct.

Sanny, you already have oodles of information showing that your
program plays nowhere near perfectly on any of its levels. It is poor-
to-mediocre at best, atrocious at worst. You are quite clearly NOT
correct.

So, you are either a liar or a fool. Which is it?

Martin Brown wrote
I don't think that at all. If the game is won for white then there is
at least one perfect game where no matter what black does white can
force a win.
theoretical possible, but highly unlikely, if not completely impossible


In real play yes, but in game theory the final outcome of a
deterministic game like chess with perfect play is one of win, draw or
lose for white. We just don't know which one it is.

well after some comprehensive analysis with Ryba i
now strongly suspect it's a draw..

so computer chess games probably will become boring in future,
eg. Hydra vs Rybka, if Rybka would play on a strong multicpu,
than the outcome should be a draw.
so you could indeed say that normal chess is 'dead' as
the late R.J. Fischer claimed, probably also to
promote his random Fischer (or 360) chess;
maybe in computer chess it also would be interesting
to abolish the 50 move draw rule, as with the 6,
and later 7 man endgame bases we could get
interesting results (?); also in random/shuffle chess.

best regards
jef
http://superchess.blogspot.com

Here I said "I think" Which means what I think about something. It
does not mean I am going to bet for it just because I think of it.

Here, I am proposing something to have more information so that I can
judge whether I was Correct.

* Sanny, you already have oodles of information showing that your
program plays nowhere near perfectly on any of its levels. It is poor-
to-mediocre at best, atrocious at worst. You are quite clearly NOT
correct.

* So, you are either a liar or a fool. Which is it?

I think you have a bit Problem in understanding things. I am neither
liar nor a fool. You are doing unnecesary arguments on a thing that do
not matter much.

If you had beaten Master Level then it does not mean it cannot improve
further . It is improving every week. Earlier everyone used to play
with Master level and Win. Now most of them are playing with Beginner
& Easy Level. Why? The time taken by Master has dropped down from
earlier 1 hour to 10 Minutes now. Still people are not willing to play
with Master level as they are afraid of loosing the game.

Now I find many games where Beginner Level has Won. And I find that
everyones rating is going down.

If the improvement continues as before the day is not far when It will
play as good as Crafty/ Fritz/ Rybka and other Strong Chess Programs.

GetClub Game is made just to win against Human Players, I have no
motive of having it play with other Commercial programs. As it is
made just for fun and not for competing with other Commercial Chess
Programs.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Ray Johnstone wrote
For me there remain 2 problems. One is that the chess tree branches
so rapidly that no computer can ever examine all positions.

correct, but i don't think we have to examine all positions,
see my next reply to 'Sanny'

The other is that even experts can be deceived by a position. A
classic example is Byrne-Fischer 1963:
On page 297 of Fischer's "My 60 Memorable Games,"
found it, 18-12-1963

both grandmasters who were commenting on the play for the spectators
in a separate room believed that I had a won game."White resigned
on his 22nd move.
well that's humbug, or those grandmasters were not looking very well,
Byrnes last move Kf1 was a clear mistake, even an engine as Crafty
very quickly evaluates the result as minus 3, which usually will become
a loss.
Kf2 would have been better, although he already had an inferior position.
he went the wrong track in the opening already at move 12 with Qd2!?,
in Poldauf-Heinig (both about 2300) in 1988 12. Rac1 was played ,
a much better move.

So if you decided to cut the tree short and do a computer-human
analysis by printing the positions after 21 moves and have them
evaluated by GMs there would likely be serious errors.


that's not the way how i've done my analysis; please note i'm involved in
computer chess for about 15 years, and had quite some discussions
with other expert, like eg. Hyatt. In the positional database which i
use for my opening research most positions (more than 15 million)
were only loaded in if they had been played by GM's two times or more.
The end evaluations have been done mostly by Crafty, at a depth
deep enough to recognize mistakes like Byrne made, but i also
have made a lot of corrections, mostly automaticly by Crafty
at the early stage of the opening (resulting in many sidelines
and transpositions), and done a lot of manual finetuning/analysis,
last year with Rybka, with interesting results.

You could say ofcourse that a computer eval at ply 12 (6 moves) means
nothing
and that with a much longer combination of say 10 moves or longer even
evals as low (or high) as -3 can be compensated by later moves,
but this is extremely rare in practical/real games.

But let's use a scientific approach: the conjecture i've put forward is:
chess is a draw; (some prelimanry 'lemma's which confirm this
theory/ strong hypothesis/confecture are on my weblog,
http://superchess.blogspot.com

Now feel free to falsify this (you or others) and try to find
a game won by white where black didnt make much mistakes;
then i will show you the mistake black made, and i will
give you the correct move necessary for black to maintain
a drawish position. good luck..


jef