Proof that Phil Innes is a liar who's nowhere near the rating he claims he
has.

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12529296

Keep in mind his last rated event was 12 years ago and the idiot is without
question much weaker now.

"Good Moves Aren't worth BEANS!" wrote in message
news:ryRDh.1111541$1T2.693092@pd7urf2no...
Even a master such as myself.....

ROFL!!

Innes, you senile jackass, how can you keep telling lies like this when
everyone knows that you are nowhere near being a master. You never were
one. And you're no longer worth the 2044 rating you used to have 12 years
ago.

Proof that Phil Innes is a liar who's nowhere near the rating he claims he
has.

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12529296

Keep in mind his last rated event was 12 years ago and the idiot is without
question much weaker now.

Proof that Phil Innes is a liar who's nowhere near the rating he claims he
has.

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12529296

Keep in mind his last rated event was 12 years ago and the idiot is without
question much weaker now.

Proof that Phil Innes is a liar who's nowhere near the rating he claims he
has.

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12529296

Keep in mind his last rated event was 12 years ago and the idiot is without
question much weaker now.

On Feb 24, 4:36 am, "Krismoor" wrote:
[...]...if it is not possible to determine
"perfect play", how can it be possible to programme computers to play
the perfect game ?

There's no difficulty writing a program that *in principle*
will win any won chess position and draw any drawn position; getting
that program to produce answers within a decent time limit is another
matter! But not really the point [especially as I was addressing the
current situation and its difficulties, not some hypothetical future
in which a computer can analyse chess fully in real time]. ...

Will it be right to say that all lines leading to a
"sure win" can be treated as perfect play? Whether a player exchanges
pieces to arrive at a won end game, or goes for a middle game win,
both should be treated as "perfect play".

... Won positions aren't "the problem". If the initial position
turns out to be a forced win for White [or indeed for Black], then
it's
possible that we will see some brilliant manoeuvres and go "Wow!";
but
it's much more likely that the win will be no more comprehensible than
those longest wins in KBBvsKN. But suppose that, as seems more
likely,
the initial position is drawn; and further that the drawing margin
is,
in some sense, quite wide -- each player has to commit a perceptible
error to lose. What then?

Well, one consequence is that, as *any* draw-preserving move is
as good as any other, a game such as 1 c3 Na6 2 g4 f6 3 Nh3 Kf7 ... is
just as perfect as the sort of game that we currently expect of GMs.
As
long as neither side strays into a forced loss, no error has been
made.
Positions are won, drawn or lost; perfect chess has no concept of
"White
has a small advantage" or "the pawn structure is weak, but there is
some
compensation because ...". Chess programs tend to assume that the
other
side sees the same things and evaluates them the same way; the
concept
that *this* position is a "dead" draw whereas *that* one may be drawn
with best play but a fallible opponent is likely not to find that play
is
very human. Ideas such as "only moves" can help to provide a program
with
that concept, but they're only a tiny part of it.

Note that in such a case, the "best play", even in chess, has
become probabilistic and psychological. The best move against a
Karpov
may be different from the best move against a Fischer or a Kasparov or
a
Kramnik. Chess at the very highest levels becomes, in a sense, no
longer
a game of skill [for all the top players have that skill in
abundance],
but a game of chance. A perfect program knows that moves A, B and C
draw
but D, E and F lose; so what are the prospects that an imperfect
player
will miss A, B, C and play D instead?

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.

On 24 Feb 2007 16:53:10 -0800, "
wrote:

On Feb 24, 4:36 am, "Krismoor" wrote:
[...]...if it is not possible to determine
"perfect play", how can it be possible to programme computers to play
the perfect game ?

There's no difficulty writing a program that *in principle*
will win any won chess position and draw any drawn position; getting
that program to produce answers within a decent time limit is another
matter! But not really the point [especially as I was addressing the
current situation and its difficulties, not some hypothetical future
in which a computer can analyse chess fully in real time]. ...
I don't think chess will ever be fully analysed:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/Chessgames.htm

www.iinet.com.au/~ray

On Feb 25, 7:25 am, Ray Johnstone wrote:
On 24 Feb 2007 16:53:10 -0800, "

wrote:
On Feb 24, 4:36 am, "Krismoor" wrote:
[...]...if it is not possible to determine
"perfect play", how can it be possible to programme computers to play
the perfect game ?

There's no difficulty writing a program that *in principle*
will win any won chess position and draw any drawn position; getting
that program to produce answers within a decent time limit is another
matter! But not really the point [especially as I was addressing the
current situation and its difficulties, not some hypothetical future
in which a computer can analyse chess fully in real time]. ...

I don't think chess will ever be fully analysed:http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/Chessgames.htm
/~ray

Thanks for the above link

http://archive.computerhistory.org/p....062303002.pdf.

is a link to "Programming computers to Play Chess" by Claude E Shannon

Worth a Visit.

On 24 Feb 2007 22:03:30 -0800, "Krismoor"
wrote:

On Feb 25, 7:25 am, Ray Johnstone wrote:
On 24 Feb 2007 16:53:10 -0800, "

wrote:
On Feb 24, 4:36 am, "Krismoor" wrote:
[...]...if it is not possible to determine
"perfect play", how can it be possible to programme computers to play
the perfect game ?

There's no difficulty writing a program that *in principle*
will win any won chess position and draw any drawn position; getting
that program to produce answers within a decent time limit is another
matter! But not really the point [especially as I was addressing the
current situation and its difficulties, not some hypothetical future
in which a computer can analyse chess fully in real time]. ...

I don't think chess will ever be fully analysed:http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/Chessgames.htm
/~ray

Thanks for the above link

http://archive.computerhistory.org/p....062303002.pdf.

is a link to "Programming computers to Play Chess" by Claude E Shannon

Worth a Visit.
Thanks. That may be where I found the Shannon quote.


www.iinet.com.au/~ray

Dr A. N. Walker wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Even though there are more chess games than atoms in the universe.

We don't know *that*. "Visible" universe perhaps?

Yeah, alright. Replace `though' with `if' and the statement stands.


[Technical note to any mathematicians reading: yes, I'm aware that
not all infinite ordinals are limit ordinals but introducing the
idea of games of length omega+1 in the current discussion will just
confuse everyone.]

Not *everyone*!

Yeah, alright. Replace `everyone' with `everyone but the
mathematicians.' :-)


Dave.

--
David Richerby Frozen Confusing Hat (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a hat but you can't understand it and
it's frozen in a block of ice!