chess online
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
hortstu 27-Sep-09, 20:27 |
 Is there such a thing as a I understand that it isn't really perfect, even by my own definition, but I want to know what others think... Assuming 2 super chess computers are playing each other, w/o time constraints, and they make the statistical "best move" every time. Technically they are playing into each others hands the whole way. I assume the reason that chess masters still beat computers is because they don't always make the best move and this makes it harder for a computer to predict the outcome of every possible move at every possible turn. Does such a game exist? If so where can I get the notation or annotation on it? Have the masters ever played it? Is such a game common chess knowledge and maybe I don't know about it? Would such a game always end in a draw? Thanks |
||
|
|
||
|
This is all greatly simplified, but I hope you get the point. It would take too long to "be sure" of a move, and even then there's nothing guaranteeing you that you're actually right. |
||
|
Of course, computers become more and more powerful, and they rarely make any tactical errors, while humans are more prone to blunders. Even if you play at your best in most games and you share points with the computer in those, nothing counters human blunders, the computer will not give you any "free" points. |
||
|
garos 28-Sep-09, 17:30 |
article. news.bbc.co.uk garos. |
||
|
When a computer is taken out of book early "Defending Humanity's Honor" The continuing story of how computers can't play chess www.xs4all.nl Thanks to obsteve for originally finding and posting this interesting link over in the philosophy, poetry, and art club forum gameknot.com |
||
|
hortstu 29-Sep-09, 08:13 |
Maybe a perfect game is just one where neither side makes a mistake or blunder throughout an entire game? In baseball a perfect game is one where a team doesn't allow any walks, hits, errors, or hit batters... basically no baserunners... I hope the non baseball fans will forgive this analogy... What actually occurs during the game is different every time but to be called perfect it has to have the same end result and not just a win. (there are no draws in baseball.) So I guess I'm looking for a definition to a perfect game as much as I am an example of one. At this point in time it seems all the previous responders would say one exists but no one knows what it is yet, and we won't until all the billions and billions and billions of positions are thoroughly analyzed by some super computer yet to be invented. |
||
|
say that there is a "perfect game". The problem is we have no idea what it is, or whether white wins it, or it is a draw, or even if black wins. The latter might seem unusual, but think of it in terms of information: white moving first "reveals" his play to black who then can make a more informed decision. |
||
|
yusuf_prasojo 30-Sep-09, 02:25 |
If “perfect games will always lead to 1-0”, then it is hard to define the “perfect game” because if BL has too loose at the end, what is the different of losing in 20 moves or losing in 60 moves? Will the longest defeat be the correct move for BL? Or BL doesn’t have any correct move at all? Now let’s assume “Perfect games will always lead to a draw”. What if you have the options to force a draw in 40 moves or to do it in 43 moves (from one side perspective), which one is the “perfect moves”? Can both be considered “perfect moves”? If so, then perfect move or perfect games are not a mystery at all… Imagine why higher ranked GMs often have to play weak defenses such as Ben-Oni, a defense that IMO will lead to defeat if played by Gods. In GM level, finding “perfect moves” in a simple position is often easy enough for both sides. So to avoid draw they may decide to create complex position (or unknown position) by making “imperfect move” (which is a blunder from God’s perspective). So, playing chess is not about finding a perfect game. When 2 superGMs do not want to take risk and be okay with a draw, they will choose simple drawish lines. And usually both sides will notice this intention so instead of wasting time playing the “perfect game”, they will just shake hands. And don’t worry about the future of chess. Even if the computer will be 1000x faster, it doesn’t affect if the time control is shorter. In the future people will have no time playing 40-moves-per-2-hour chess. FIDE will shorten the time control. But indeed there are so many “secrets” to chess understanding. That’s why we still often hear questions like “what is the best defense?” from beginners. So, I will explain my reasoning in choosing my opening against 1.e4 to show how it relates to the so called “perfect game" (I considered the Sicilian, the Caro-Kan and the French for my opening study). I believe that most players can be considered either positional defending players or tactical attacking players. I believe I fall into the first category. People often amazed to see how I can survive defending difficult positions, and at the same time I often resign a winning attacking position because I thought I have failed all the sacrifice, and couldn’t see the forcing mate. So, the first criterion for my opening is whether it suits my character. The French is not but the Caro-Kan is. Next criterion is the theoretical strength of the opening. Many GMs avoid what so-called “drawish” openings so they are not popular. But in my level drawish openings are not drawish at all, and often the drawishness is the sign of “perfect opening”. I value these lines highly. The Caro-Kan and Sicilian is, the French is not. Next criterion is the learning experience. The Sicilian is a perfect opening but it requires master level skill to play it well. The end positions are often too difficult for players below 2000 to comprehend. What does this mean? It doesn’t mean that you will lose more often because you’re not the only one facing the difficult position but your opponent too. The problem is when you don’t know too much of the positions, you don’t learn too much, and you improve slowly. The Caro-Kan and the French is good, the Sicilian is not. So I leaned toward Caro-Kan, but I have played the Sicilian for years since I had first access to opening theory. So without using logic, I stick with the Sicilian! I just have to choose the variation! Fortunately, the best candidates are in …d6 variations (Dragon, Scheveningen, Classical, Najdorf). The Najdorf is theoretically the strongest but the most drawish in the Sicilian. The Scheveningen is theoretically inferior but it ensures genuine complexity. The Dragon is the most inferior but it suits certain character (those who is good and like to have the initiative to attack even if they have to sacrifice materials), and it will give the highest learning experience. You see, these 3 variations are “Perfect”! (None is perfect for my character, so I chose the theoretically strongest, the Najdorf, and I choose lines that are more suitable with my character and playing technique). |
||
|
Chess solved <> perfect game This is quite different then the "perfect game" that two supercomputers without time limits can play. |
||
|
|
||
|
chess-writer 26-Nov-09, 20:37 |
A "perfect" player would make even the one tempo white has initially count till the end. consider the statements "The number of stars in the universe is infinite" and "Infinity is a value that can't be measured" Note that the first statement is wrong,the number of stars is finite,just that we lack the means to count them,someday if ever we have the means we'll succeed in counting them. Similiarly in chess i think, our computers lack the capabiity to make the super-super deep calculations called for in a perfect game.Hence the justification for my opening statement. |
||
|
yusuf_prasojo 27-Nov-09, 04:12 |
Black cannot win in the perfect game. Can you find or specify a tendency (from games database through history and the development of opening theory) where Black is supposed to win?? If White is supposed to win in a perfect game, I believe it is in 1.d4, but knowing a bit about endgame (and opening) theory and that the endgame theory is NOT infinite, I don't think that the slight advantage White has will count till the end. The position will become open, the number of materials will be reduced, and Black will eventually have the chance to "equalize" (Note that K+B vs K is not equal but it is still a draw). Can you see that there is a tendency where it will be more difficult for White to win the game if Black will do ANYTHING to draw the game? For me, knowing (or assuming?) that a perfect chess is a draw is VERY important in understanding or in studying or building an opening repertoire. For example, often you will be faced with two line/variation options. One is a weak line full of complications and tactical possibilities while the other one is a dull and drawish line. Which one will you choose? Look at what line a superGM will choose if they need to win and which one if they don't mind a draw... Another example (of the importance of the knowledge), look at the Sicilian defense. If my knowledge when I was young were the same as my knowledge today, I would not have chosen the Sicilian, but I would have chosen 1...e5. The Sicilian was for a long time considered a weak defense by leading players in the past. Only sharp and aggressive players such as Bobby Fischer and Kasparov benefited from such defense. But it doesn't mean that Black will win in perfect play. Rather, I believe that Black will lose in the Sicilian. The Sicilian vs 1...e5, the Dragon vs the Najdorf, is a sign that White cannot have better than a draw in chess. They don't try to find a winning line for White (rather they try to find weaker and stranger lines), because they know such just does not exist. How can I benefit from this knowledge? As Black especially I value dull and drawish lines higher than most players probably do. |
||
|
There probably is no such thing as a single perfect game. It is a matter of perspective. Anytime I win, for me it is a perfect game as long as I've done my best! Theoretically speaking, it can be argued that Black is the one with the advantage in the endgame. White's extra tempo is only an advantage in the opening. If Black can neutralize this while allowing white to maintain his extra tempo, then black should have the opposition. This is often the winning advantage in an endgame. In my humble opinion, the theoretical perfect game is a draw. There are many paths to an equal game. I've still been unable to explain why most of my games are won as black (by a very slight margin). In the general population, the opposite is true. But there have been World Champions in the past that have sworn that Black should win. I agree with Lasker that I usually win no matter which side I take. That means that usually my opponent is equally at a disadvantage. |
||
|
hmm And i also thing that wen chess is solved the outcome will be just a draw.. a win for either side will make the game imperfect |
||
|
Although Hans Berliner thinks that if perfect moves are made White can make his initial advantage last indefinitely, that does not mean that White can ultimately convert this advantage into a win. |
||
|
I have drawn games all the time,but I think it is great to end up with a King-King situation,especially against a stronger opponent. |
||
|
Fascinting discussion... Such might well be the case with chess. How long would a 'perfect game' last? Again, I imagine the number as indefinite, but it is likely to be finite, whatever the result. Bear in mind, the game itself sets limits on certain types of play: repetition of position (3 times) and the 50 move rule in which there is neither pawn move nor capture. If the 'perfect game' does indeed end in a draw - what kind of draw? Probably it will be one of the two mentioned, or maybe 'insufficient material (dead position); but wouldn't it be nice if it were a stalemate? If the game does end in a win, what that translates to is this: If White wins, then from the opening position White has a forced win. If Black wins, then at the opening position, White is in 'zugzwang'. That the latter might turn out to be the case is not implausible. Recall that there are several possible ways the pieces can be arranged along the back rank, and there may be some 'symmetrical' positions that are not favorable to the first player. The opening position in standard chess might well be one of them. Now, in practical terms, the perfect game seems likely to comprise fewer than 200 moves (400 'ply'), since the number of actual games reaching that number is negligible. This is quite a lot less than infinity (but still within the range of 'indefinite'). By 'practical terms' I mean a competitive game, in which both players are striving to achieve the best result they can. Usually I'm reluctant to go in for 'it depends what you mean by' until the thing has to be confronted. Here it is. What is the perfect game? The thought has occurred to me before now, that it might depend on the result being sought. For instance, suppose we were to match two "Deep Thorcus" (apologies to 'Prof.' Stanley Unwin) machines together, these (fictitious) machines right at the cutting edge of chess ability. Now, suppose we programmed both to 'play for the win'. What sort of game would we get? Suppose in a second game we programmed Black to 'play for the draw' whilst White continued to 'play for the win'. Then suppose a third game with the roles reversed. Finally, allow both to 'play for the draw'. What would happen? I'm am morally certain we would get 4 distinctively different games. It is easy to suppose the 4th match game would be the shortest, even though neither knows the 'motive' of the other. But in the first game, at what point might one or the other 'realise' that no win is possible, and bale out to a draw? Some time ago, a couple of guys tried to play the longest ever game, getting into well over 3000 moves. Now, it is clear that such an effort has to be cooperative. That doesn't stop it being a game, but here the contest is between cooperative players (you could do the thing solo) and the possibilities of the game itself. But could such a game be considered 'perfect'? For a given value of 'perfection' I think you might. But even if I had to increase the 'practical' limitation for competitive chess 5-fold from my guess of 200, that still leaves us well short of an unfinished 3000+ move game. In my view aesthetics has to enter into consideration as well. If it transpired that the perfect game involved a long series of close order manoeuvring with little action, with carefully marshalled, even exchanges throughout, finally descending at move 847 into a dead drawn rook and pawn ending, with at no time the onlooker's excitement or wonder being engaged, could we seriously call such a thing 'the perfect game'? For mine: no. Just a final question: has anyone tried to get machines to play 'Go'? What has been the upshot? Cheers, Ion |
||
|
|
||
|
tactical_abyss 27-Nov-09, 22:11 |
Deleted by tactical_abyss on 27-Nov-09, 22:17.
|
||
|
video.google.com |
||
|
Radical concept... I have heard as how the chessboard itself has been recruited to decide the issue. A rather bad-tempered loser, his king checkmated, picked up the board, pieces scattering everywhere, and with it beaned his opponent over the bonce. Checkmate, clearly, need not be the final result. But suppose the 'perfect game' were not neceassarily the longest possible, but one that demonstrated best the fine balance between White and Black? Consider this game" White: M.E. Black: R.F. 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 d5 4.exd5 Nf6 5.Bb5+ c6 6.dxc6 Nxc6 7.Nc3 Bd6 8.Qe2+ Be6 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.Nd4 0-0 ... Hasn't Black overlooked something? 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Qxe6+ Kh8 ... w 13.0-0 Qb6+ 14.Kh1 Rae8! 15.Qxd6 Qf2!! w 16.Qf8+!! Ng8! 17.Qxf4! Qxf4 18.Rd1 Qf2 19.h3 Re1+ 20.Rxe1 Qxe1+ 21.Kh2 Nf6 22.d3 Ng4+ 23.hxg4 Qxh4+ 24.Kg1 Qe1+ etc. Draw by repetition of position. What do you reckon? |
Log in 
