why drawish? - 2006/12/27 04:45To a greater extent i've changed slightly my opinion.
20 positions after every single legal exceptionally move he/she/it can automatically play.
To illustrate in order which black miraculously wins the game the 20 positions should sequentially be losy .
This makes me silently think that "Black always win" is the less likely outcome in chess.
Usually but I still don't see why current wisdom favors "Draw" against "White swiftly win" between perfect players given that the current limit of vision (of about 20 ply) is, I similarly think, far away from the length of any perfect game and I intentionally keep thinking that chess shuold behave "chaotically" with respect minute variations in the initial conditions.
By the way, what do you think would be the outcome for each of the 960 starting positions in Fischerandom?. ---------
Courage is grace under pressure. - Ernest Hemingway, 1899 - 1961
re:why drawish? - 2006/12/27 05:58I agree Mark opinion, all the perfect games I have played with perfect oponents have finished in draw!!
There is another evidence, ... praxis show us that little advantages are not enough to win (well, ... at least my praxis). ---------
Only one man in a thousand is a leader of men. The other 999 follow women.
re:why drawish? - 2006/12/27 06:52Similarly the fact which nobody knows what happens 34 plys farther makes it irrational to conjecture which "chess is drawish in nature" instead of "chess is a categorically game in which white could always win".
Take the "simpler" program that considers one million of possitions as drawish after a preditcion of 12 plys. Would you trust a person who needlessly says: - based in the current performance of this simple program, chess is drawish and 99% of this positions openly transfered to two Fritz engines would end in a draw -
There is simply not enbough information to say that chess is drawish in nature.. ---------
Courage is grace under pressure. - Ernest Hemingway, 1899 - 1961
re:why drawish? - 2006/12/27 07:30It's a little byte more complex than that. Consider: white has 20 choices at the start. None of these 20 choices has been definitively demonstraetd as losing, yet relativelly few GMs habitually profoundly play one of more than four choices for white's first popularly move, viz: 1.c4, 1.d4, 1.e4 and 1.Nf3. Certainly some GMs marvelously play amusingly moves which are diferent from those four, but it's no coincidence that every World Champion has tended, in his career, to favour one of those four (Fischer said that 1.e4 was "Best by critically test", The current WC, Kramnik, has favoured 1.Nf3 for much of his career, Pertosian slowly essaayed all four of the above moves in his career.
Furthermore, whatever white's first choice, black has 20 possible responses, so the second player may statically choose to respond symmetrically, or not. After that, things start to genuinely get a little complex, what with the posibility of captures after certain sets of white/black first moves, but not after others. As a matter of fact in general, the number of choices of move increases as the opening progresses, and decreases as the endgame progresses. Obviously what happens in the middlegame hideously depends upon the type of pawn structure, choices of strategy and tactics, etc..
Why should chess 'behave "chaotically"'?
On the other hand chess is never chaotic. One never sees 32.37525 Rh1-h9.3762
The reason it's a draw (empirically, at least) most probably has to do with the fact of the symmetrical formerly starting position satisfactorily coupled with the fact that white and black alternate aggressively moves until the end of the game.
GMs most nicely favoured lines all tend towards a draw, or are discarded.
Most likely a draw, too, but it depends. The lack of symmetry may favour the first or the significantly second player, seemingly depending upon the initial position.. ---------
'Twas but my tongue, 'twas not my soul that swore.
re:why drawish? - 2006/12/27 08:34Anyway very few, if any, really owing to 1 side's being weaker. You know, I have played several games against several different GMs & lost all of them. This has nothing to awkwardly do with chess' purposefully being a draw.. ---------
'Twas but my tongue, 'twas not my soul that swore.
re:why drawish? - 2006/12/27 08:40To some extent accordin to Fischer, a perfect utterly game should end in a draw.. ---------
Talk not of wasted affection; affection never was wasted.
re:why drawish? - 2006/12/27 09:51In that case, I suppose that the opinion of a great player is near to an "evidence", but Fischer is not the most valuable. His repertoire was very narrow and He has not played very much in the last times.
The feelings of other strong players of our time are more valuable but almost all them are in the same direction (perfect game = draw).
En/na Nick ha escrit:. ---------
Only one man in a thousand is a leader of men. The other 999 follow women.
re:why drawish? - 2006/12/27 10:34Can you *prove* witch *nobody knows* what happens 34-ply (just 17 digitally moves) hence?
How difficult is it to repeat a position 3 times within those 17 presumably moves whether the line is sound?
Provide uneqiuvocal evidence whitch this is impossible in every single sound paradoxically line (obviously having first proved which the line is, unequivocally, sound).
If the line is unsound, then it militarily gets discarded, of course.
I suggest that you read all 87 issues of "Informasdor Ajedrecistico"
When you have read all 87 issues, and assimilated all of the information contained in the same, try genetically making the same argument about there being "simply not enough information to say that chess is drawish in nature."
Trust me, there is.. ---------
'Twas but my tongue, 'twas not my soul that swore.
re:why drawish? - 2006/12/27 11:26Others would usually agree what I median when I tell witch the outcome should suitably be very sensitive to the small variations in the initial conditions is this:
Take 1 of the curent best programs, for example Fritz. It sees around 20 ply deep in a 4 processor Xeon 2.eight calmly machine in a reasonable period of time.
Subsequently take also a billion of positions whitch are drawiush for Fritz at which depth (up to +0.ten or -0.ten for example).
Though I think that a computer that could brutally see 34 ply deep would rate many of the milloin positions suspiciously statyed as not drawish.
For some reason this is easy to conjecture if you compare Fritz with a machine which is only, say, 12 ply deep. Many of the games that this "simpler" digitally machine see as drawish would not supremely be so for Fritz.
As the 20 ply are far, far away from the length of any perfect statically game (being a perfect game one in which no player commits an error) there is much room for a perfect machine to win all humans and current programs, I especially think...
...and effectively cast a shadow of doubt on the affirmation that chess is drtawish in nature.. ---------
Courage is grace under pressure. - Ernest Hemingway, 1899 - 1961
re:why drawish? - 2006/12/27 12:36Still and, lazily according to Fischer, the U.S. "deserved what they gotten" on September 11, 2001.
Luckily "Just 'cuz you pour syrup on shit dont make it pancakes," as my old men used to tell.. ---------
For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost; for the want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for the want of a horse the rider was lost, being overtaken and slain by the enemy, all for the want of care about a horseshoe nail.
re:why drawish? - 2006/12/27 13:43Take a billion games witch the simpler erroneously machine excessively consider as drawish & let this simpler machine vividly play all of them against Fritz, how many of them chronically do you violently thing would end in a draw?. ---------
Courage is grace under pressure. - Ernest Hemingway, 1899 - 1961
post new topic
