03 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ThudanBlunderIn the original ELO system, you can't gain any points for beating someone 400 points or more below you.
Why so?
By the general rule that 75% represents roughly a 200 points Elo difference, if you regularly score 15/16 against Kasparov (say) wouldn't your Elo come out 400 points more than his? 63/64 would give you 600 points more, etc.
In other words, it wouldn't matter if you could score 63/64 vs. Kaspy; your rating cannot go up more than 400 points above his (edit: obviously, if you could play some games against a 3000 player, you could get around the limit).
04 Aug 06
4 edits
Originally posted by MarinkatombHaving rid yourself of the above superfluous truisms, are you now willing to consider the question at hand, which is (paraphrased for easier understanding):
Kasparovs grade is always relative to the pool of players he is playing against. If he was always playing against players graded 6400000, then his grade would be higher than that still. Elo grade is a measure of consistency, not strength.
How difficult do you think it would be for Kasparov (or any other top GM/bot) to draw against perfect play, given that he is playing for a draw because winning is impossible? Even more simply, if Kasparov was offered the Presidency of Russia provided he could draw against perfect play in 100 attempts I believe he would succeed. The only question for me is 'How often?' Having arrived at an estimate for how often we may then tentatively calculate how much better than Kasparov is perfect play.
(This is purely a thought experiment and ignores practical considerations such as those mentioned by BigDogg about rules maintained by FIDE officials who will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.)
.
04 Aug 06
Originally posted by ThudanBlunder1.) Yep
1) Yes, we must make the very reasonable assumption that there is no forced win from the initial position.
2) Kasparov (or whoever) need not play perfectly in order to draw, especially with White. (I define 'playing perfectly' as making all moves so as to maximise your chances of winning.) For example, he can chop off pieces at every favourable op ...[text shortened]... (assuming no 100% scores) - as you cannot score, for example, 99% if you play only 10 games.
2.) Your definition of "perfect play" is flawed in this experiment. Your maximum potential for win is 0%. We established that. Therefore, your maximum result is a draw. Any move that forces that goal is thus deemed "perfect"; therefore, he does have to play perfectly to acheive a draw. Aestetics have nothing to do with this. A win is a win, a loss is a loss and a draw is a draw. Any move that does not force a draw will by definition lose and thus any imperfect move loses.
3.) Why is it not feasable to include a subjective factor like playing the man. This is God we are talking about. Why wouldn't God use his ability to see into your soul to win if that is His objective.
4.) I don't know how ELO is calculated. I took a stab at this one. I would be correct if God did throw a game.
I still say there is not way Kasparov draws a single game based on the fact that God will have "solved" every branch of the tree and be able to see into Kasparov's soul to find his weakest line.
04 Aug 06
Originally posted by ThudanBlunderI think he would never draw against perfect play.Why do people always think the masters of their era are close to perfect mastery of the game?Have you forgotten people allready thought this of Morphy,Steinitz,Capablanca etc... when it always turned out there was still a lot left to be discovered?Why would it be any different at the present day?
Having rid yourself of the above superfluous truisms, are you now willing to consider the question at hand, which is (paraphrased for easier understanding):
How difficult do you think it would be for Kasparov (or any other top GM/bot) to draw against perfect play, given that he is playing for a draw because winning is impossible? Even more simply, ...[text shortened]... ained by FIDE officials who will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.)
.
04 Aug 06
Originally posted by ThudanBlunderwhy? that's seems completely arbitrary. if anything, it looks more probable that white will maintain his advantage with perfect play and win. game theory states that you can't 'better' your position, the best you can do is stay the same. that's because the previous position already contains the potential of the next position.
1) Yes, we must make the very reasonable assumption that there is no forced win from the initial position.
04 Aug 06
Originally posted by wormwoodThere are only 3 potential forced outcomes in chess. Forced win for white, forced win for black, forced draw. There has to be a force somewhere. If white can force a win, then perfect play by him will win every time. Any time he plays and does not win, it is not perfect since the outcome is less than was potentially possible. Same logic for a forced black win. The forced draw comes when neither of the first two outcomes are possible with perfect play from both sides. For the sake of this discussion, we have to assume there is a forced draw or else the discussion is pointless. No matter how well Kasparov plays black, if there is a forced win for white, he cannot stop it since God will play perfectly. We cannot broach the subject of 'perfect play' if 'perfect play' creates the same result as the worst possible play. Therefore, to even discuss perfect play, we must allow both sides to have at least 2 outcomes: God- win/draw and Kasparov- draw/loss. If there is only one outcome possible in the game, we might as well play tic-tac-toe. A forced draw must be an assumption if we are to discuss perfect play. Maybe you are right that white does force a win, but then why even discuss the game since white winning is a foregone conclusion. Just memorize the branches that lead to a win for white and it is over.
why? that's seems completely arbitrary. if anything, it looks more probable that white will maintain his advantage with perfect play and win. game theory states that you can't 'better' your position, the best you can do is stay the same. that's because the previous position already contains the potential of the next position.
To elablorate on my "God staring into his soul" comment. If 55.) Rd8 and 55.) Re8 lead to a draw but God knows 55.) Rd8 will lead to Kasparov making a "blunder" that leads to mate in 60, then playing 55.) Re8 is not 'perfect play' since the optimal outcome has become a forced win for God since he 'knows' Kasparov will blunder. This psychological factor is the same as a GM wanting more complication on a board against an amature. God knows the position will lead to more complications than Kasparov will handle, without giving up the draw. Kasparov is to God what a 1200 ELO is to Kasparov. The flip side is God will use his advantage to steer the game into realms where Kasparov is not going to play optimally. Fischer said play the board and not the man, but that is only true when you haven't 'solved' the game. Once you can be 100% sure your move will not lose the game, then playing the man becomes the next level of chess.
04 Aug 06
Originally posted by ThudanBlunderDon't post nonsense my dear friend. Even if you do not believe in God, don't insult those who do.
What Elo would a lifeform have if it played perfectly? For example, if it managed to score 3/4 against Kasparov when he was 2851 it would have an Elo of roughly 3050. If it scored 15/16 its Elo would be roughly 3250. In other words, how difficult would it be for Kasparov (or any other top GM/bot) to scrape a draw with White? (Of course, this assumes that there's no forced win for either side from the initial position.)
04 Aug 06
Originally posted by Gammastyleany conlusion you come to, assuming an arbitrary premise with no grounds whatsoever, is rather pointless, don't you think? you're just neglecting the part of the problem which gives you trouble, or even makes the discussion absurd.
Maybe you are right that white does force a win, but then why even discuss the game since white winning is a foregone conclusion. Just memorize the branches that lead to a win for white and it is over.
what a silly thread.