> Not from Uri! :-) :-)
I'm surprised that there hasn't been a claim that God knows less than nothing - "In the quantum world, we can know too much ... and it is in these situations where one finds negative knowledge."
for the record, i am making the claim:
under true classical time controls, there will never exist a chess program (mated to any type of hardware) that can achieve an EV/game of 0.82 against: rybka 3.0 (64-bit), w/ a top-notch opening book, partial (i.e. most commonly encountered) 7-men EGTB, on a 5ghz octal (assuming 80% MP scaling efficiency) system.
My favourite is the bad prediction:
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance"
Last words of Gen. John Sedgwick, spoken as he looked out over the parapet at enemy lines during the Battle of Spotsylvania in 1864.
> Ok, you're on record. While we wait, you can browse a bit here :-)
That was really funny Vas :-)
Anyway, on the other hand I am even more (on the negative side!) impressed by preditions that HAVEN'T been realized,
mostly on account of an ill-justified "lack of money".
For example, back in the late sixties, when I was about 11 years old, a science chapter in a children's magazine claimed that by 1982, most - if not all - cities would have plexiglass covers and artificial climate! But today, almost on the last day of 2007, when I take the bike to drive to the office, I have to take a second pair of trousers with me because of the numerous rain-filled pits on the poorly constructed "bicycle sidewalk".
Not even 8 years ago, on the edge of the 21st century, local government decided to re-start making use of tramways to connect suburbs and villages with the centre of Antwerp, that "'big metropole" (which is nearly empty after 21 o' clock btw). They claimed it would only take 4 months. It took them about 3 or 4 years, and they had to do the entire job twice because no one knew how to lay the clinkers such that they didn't shake loose each time a tram passed.
That's why I laugh at predictions which are made today, because in spite of so called increased technological knowledge, a lot of basic knowledge has been lost by the exaggerated outsourcing to LCCs and globalisation which costs much more money than the claimed economical profit (profit for who?).
I dare to claim that by 2082, cities will still not have plexiglass covers, and that chances are higher that people of 2082 will be living according to 1928 standards!
But I do hope that Rybka 7.0 will have 4000+ Elo :-)
and by doing it again and again you may get 4000 if you choose the right opponents.
It is clear that rating is dependent on the opponents in chess.
But Rybka 3 on the other hand .....
You guys have seen ridiculous wins from table bases. It would be interresting to see a chess program play against tablebases from a drawn but really tricky position. That could be a clue about the outcome of a match against God. Because God should always be able to get into really tricky positions isnt that true?
Im not saying that chess isnt theoritically a draw. I think it is.
When there is more than one right move tablebases do not give you the move with the best chances
so drawin against tablebases maybe easy because the program that use them may choose a move that force stalemate instead of correct move that give the opponent to work hard.
Another point is that I am not sure if god is able to play chess.
It is possible that god is dead and can do nothing.
Very true what you say about my tablebase example.
> It is possible that god is dead and can do nothing.
Oh no!!! Who is then watching over this messed up universe??? :)
> Oh no!!! Who is then watching over this messed up universe???
Maybe God created Karma and Dharma, and left.
> Another point is that I am not sure if god is able to play chess.
I'm not sure if God'd want to play chess. Try this:
Set up a chess board, with a clock and everything ready. Make your first move as white and then pray to God to play black's first move.
Chances are that God will forfeit the game on time.
Actually, I think that I may have one played against God on the Internet Chess Club. I played 1.e4, and my opponent immediately resigned!
> We must have a prophet to communicate the moves...
But, the devil may get in the way, and then we end playing a game against Satan. I'd wonder what's Satan's ELO rating, though.
> But, the devil may get in the way, and then we end playing a game against Satan. I'd wonder what's Satan's ELO rating, though.
Definatelly lower than god's ELO, because he lost against him
On my belief, you can't surprise God ;) and since with her/his perfect timeless knowledge, it can beat you in the least possible moves, it seems you can't beat the devil in less than 27 moves.
However, it's disappointing that the devil can't play perfect chess, that means it's beatable, and so it's weaker than the strongest player conceivable.
white can almost certainly force a draw. so the question that remain is: is white's opening advantage large enough such that "God" can win almost all the time against the latest version of rybka mated to monster hardware? or to put it another way: is rybka searched to, say, 34-ply dramatically stronger than rybka searched to, say, 26-ply? is the draw window in chess really that narrow?
really? do you have some info about that?
huh? this makes no sense. all that matters is the likelihood long forced mates actually show up in real games (rather than contrived positions) more often w/ many pieces still left on the board vs. when fewer pieces are on the board. like i said before, i dont think this is true.
I never played a game of chess against god (would be kind of difficult, as I don't believe in any kind of god or any Supreme Being), and I don't think anyone here has ever done so.
Who ever played a game of chess against god, please tell us. ;)
If anyone claims he has done so, I'd like to hear what kind of psychotropic substance(s) he used.
> Shouldn't this thread be moved to the new OT forum, too? - i mean The Flip Side?
I don't think so, since Rybka has been mentioned now and then :)
I think we currently have enough evidence to say that perfect play will certainly not result in a near-perfect score against today's top chess engines. My guess is that it would result in scores around 95% or so against Rybka and Zappa Mexico (I originally pulled that number out of thin air, but now I see that it happens to be roughly 500 points of elo difference on today's scales). The decided games in Mexico occurred when one or both engines "took risks" in the opening and/or game phase. This doesn't always need to occur: game 6 is a good example. One thing at which Zappa is excellent is drawing a drawn game; however, since its style is extremely different from Rybka's, and I predicted that this would occur based on watching games before the match, the number of decided games in that match was about the most that you will ever see between opponents at that level in match conditions. Anyway, here is where I think is the problem with the idea that, say, a perfect chess-playing entity will have a near-perfect score against, say, a 3400-rated chess entity. First, a 3400-rated chess entity will have a score of 85% against Rybka and Zappa Mexico. Fine. The point at which I become very suspicious is the notion that the same entity that is able to score 95% against Rybka and Zappa Mexico will also be able to score 76% against the 3400-rated chess entity. I just don't see this happening--even if you had Erdo and Dagh/Jeroen play their two representative engines against each other and constantly fix the opening books of these 3100-rated engines, you would, after awhile, change the course of the game toward a sort of draw threshold. This already changes things significantly, and the 3100-rated teams will be playing moves that, while possibly not the moves that give the "best" winning chances in the position, are still not far enough away to change the perfect, objective evaluation of the position. To do that, they would probably have to produce a "sum of mistakes" in their random walk that equates to around +/- 1.00 in the evaluations of today's best engines (to wit: Rybka and Zappa). When one of the opponents is perfect, this reduced to a one-directional "random" walk. Today, if we talk about 50% of the games being decided at the 3100 level, it means that this threshold is crossed (and kept!) 50% of the time. Pulling a number out of thin air (it turns out it doesn't matter WHICH number I choose, as long as it's small enough), let's assume that the "average" mistake is worth 0.20 units in the evaluation. Thus, by the random walk statistics, the programs combine to make SQRT(N) mistakes, each worth 0.20 units, to get to this number. Here, we see that N = 25. Thus, each program makes roughly 12 mistakes, each worth 0.20 units. Now let's look at a program that makes only 5 of these mistakes, therefore a program that will lose half of its games against a perfect chess-playing entity. It makes such a mistake 5 times for every 12 times that the first program makes such a mistake. With these being approximately Poisson statistics, the good program makes 5 +/- 2.23 mistakes per game, and the "bad" program makes 12 +/- 3.46 mistakes per game. Thus, we have that on average, the good program wins a little bit over 95% of the games, say, 96%. This is the same program that is able to score 25% against God.
Thus, I have basically just calculated that God has an estimated Elo of 3850. I see this as an upper limit due to the opening book factors I mentioned above.
It's natural to want to look at my assumptions, in particular the one about an "objective" evaluation of +/- 1.00 meaning a decided game. This might not actually be correct. However, I do think that it's probable that only 25% of the moves made by each side in games between Rybka and Zappa Mexico are on the order of one-fifth of the amount required to throw the game. While the rest certainly aren't perfect, most of the other mistakes would probably be of a noticeably smaller magnitude in actuality, perhaps a few hundredths of a pawn. Lastly, we must worry about things like ...f4?? that blew game 9 completely. I simply don't believe that a 3400-rated player will ever make such moves.
> I think we currently have enough evidence to say that perfect play will certainly not result in a near-perfect score against today's top chess engines.
I really disagree with the above statement, and it is the basis of your whole argument. What evidence do we have? Just that some of the best programs tend to get more draws against each other when they play on better hardware? I don't believe that Rybka or any of the other programs could get a single draw in thousands of games against a perfect opponent. Chess is just too deep and too complex. Even the best chess players using the best programs many times can't even figure out what the losing move was when analyzing games.
even in the WCC matches it is not forbidden to influence psychologically the opponent :-)
but see, the thing is God may not be able to score +600 against a 3200 entity, due to: white's advantage, opening book strength (particularly if one was created w/ the objective of playing for the draw as black), and the nature of the elo rating system.
Also, the current CCRL and CEGT ratings used short, randomized opening books, and on this basis it is much easier to imagine a 4000 rating than would be the case with 30 move deep opening books.
I must say I am a bit surprised by those draws. But they make perfect sense considering the elo difference. It just sounds strange if Rybka makes draw against Fritz 5. 10% chance.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill