04 Aug 06
3 edits
Originally posted by Gammastyle1) Why the fixation on a need for an all-knowing omnipotent God? As chess is a finite game we don't need to bother him with this trivial problem. I only mentioned him to give the thread a working title.
1.) Yep
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, ry branch of the tree and be able to see into Kasparov's soul to find his weakest line.
2) Your point would be valid if both sides played perfectly. But here one opponent is Kasparov or some other imperfect entity. I would define perfect play more precisely thus: Consider all the possible games of chess. They can be subdivided into 20 categories, corresponding to the 20 different opening moves for White. For each of those 20 moves we count how many wins arise from them. The move that results in the most wins is the best opening move. Hence if the perfect player - just so that you don't forget let's call him NotGod - were White he might play 1.e4 in the knowledge that this scores more total wins than 1.f3, say, even if with best play by each side both e4 and f3 result in forced draws.
3) Your insistence on considering a complicated model (involving subjective factors and nebulous concepts like God) when we haven't even worked out simpler models involving 'only' the chess game tree proves that we are not even on the same page and are never likely to be.
04 Aug 06
4 edits
Originally posted by wormwoodNo I don't think. Cosmology and string theory, for example, do not grind to a halt whenever their standards of proof do not meet your own. The whole of mathematics is based upon inherently unprovable assumptions; yet your computer still works. The only silly thing round here is your 'can't do, won't do' attitude. If you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to a thread because you personally think it is silly then keep out of it! (Better still, move house.)
any conlusion you come to, assuming an arbitrary premise with no grounds whatsoever, is rather pointless, don't you think?
04 Aug 06
5 edits
Originally posted by z00tWhen I write 'God' I am referring to my concept of God, not yours. So there is no need to get on your high horse about anything. There are far too many religious fascists in the world already.
Don't post nonsense my dear friend. Even if you do not believe in God, don't insult those who do.
04 Aug 06
3 edits
Originally posted by GorgarConsider the game Noughts and Crosses (Tic-tac-toe). Crosses move first; yet the game is a forced draw, even though it is a much simpler game than chess and the Crosses have many more winning lines than the Noughts. I therefore find it difficult to believe that either side has a winning advantage in chess, a game in which the first move gives much less advantage.
I 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?
Since when has claiming that Kasparov would draw at least once in 100 attempts been equivalent to claiming 'close to perfect mastery'? Yet another straw man argument.
04 Aug 06
Originally posted by ThudanBlunderThat's the thing though. ELO ratings are a statistical measurement. They are entirely dependent on real games versus real players. They have predictive power based solely on past performance. Thus, it is meaningless to talk of 3500-rated players in a world that currently has no one higher than ~2800.
(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 ThudanBlunderIf you can draw against perfect play,even if only once,I'd say you'd have to be pretty close to perfect play yourself.And it wasn't directed against you alone,there've been other posts sounding like Kasparov plays close to perfection.
Consider the game Noughts and Crosses (Tic-tac-toe). Crosses move first; yet the game is a forced draw, even though it is a much simpler game than chess and the Crosses have many more winning lines than the Noughts. I therefore find it difficult to believe that either side has a winning advantage in chess, a game in which the first move gives much less ...[text shortened]... tempts been equivalent to claiming 'close to perfect mastery'? Yet another straw man argument.
I don't know tic-tac-toe but I happen to agree with you that a perfect chessgame is most likely a draw.I fail to see what that has to do with my previous post though 😕
The straw man 😛
04 Aug 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemOK, forget about Elo ratings for the moment. By the Morgenstern-von Neumann theorem, every zero-sum, two-person game of perfect information has an optimal strategy. How well (how many draws, assuming there is no forced win) do you think Kasparov in his prime would do against this strategy, given that a player of his calibre never has any trouble drawing with White when required against his contemporaries. Is this a meaningful question?
That's the thing though. ELO ratings are a statistical measurement. They are entirely dependent on real games versus real players. They have predictive power based solely on past performance. Thus, it is meaningless to talk of 3500-rated players in a world that currently has no one higher than ~2800.
04 Aug 06
Originally posted by GorgarI personally think Kasparov's play is far from perfect. I am not even a great fan of his.
If you can draw against perfect play,even if only once,I'd say you'd have to be pretty close to perfect play yourself.And it wasn't directed against you alone,there've been other posts sounding like Kasparov plays close to perfection.
I don't know tic-tac-toe but I happen to agree with you that a perfect chessgame is most likely a draw.I fail to see what that has to do with my previous post though 😕
The straw man 😛
One can expertly chop off wood at every favourable opportunity and get a draw (IMO, even against an optimal strategy) without getting anywhere near perfect play,
04 Aug 06
Originally posted by ThudanBlunderAssume for now that White cannot force a win from move 1.
Consider the game Noughts and Crosses (Tic-tac-toe). Crosses move first; yet the game is a forced draw, even though it is a much simpler game than chess and the Crosses have many more winning lines than the Noughts. I therefore find it difficult to believe that either side has a winning advantage in chess, a game in which the first move gives much less ...[text shortened]... tempts been equivalent to claiming 'close to perfect mastery'? Yet another straw man argument.
But it is reasonable to think that white can at least force a draw from move 1.
Also, if Kasparov knows he is playing God (or anything that has infinite calculation ability), then he knows it is hopeless to strive for a win.
On the first move, there are 20 moves. Perhaps 6 of the 20 moves preserve a forced draw, whereas 14 transition to where black can force a win. Move 2 for white might have 21 choices, only 3 preserving a forced draw, and 18 transitioning to a forced win for black.
We can squabble about the definition of perfect by changing our assumptions about our opponent. If our opponent is not God, we have to consider moves that increase our chances for a win, even though we know it cannot be forced. Perfect play is hard to define when our opponent is not perfect. But if our opponent is perfect, then it is easy to define perfect. We can define perfect for the sake of this argument as always choosing a move that maintains a draw (that is perfect for Kasparov).
Perfect for God is more difficult to define. Of course he will always win a won game and at least draw when a draw can be forced. That takes near infinite calculation ability. But we'd also expect God to play lines that increase the chance that Kasparov blunders. God would not play lines that make it easy for Kasparov to maintain a draw. No sense squabbling over how we define "perfect" for God, merely the option to obfuscate would greatly add to the challenge of drawing God.
In my opinion, no human could get a draw against God.
Perhaps we could draw in tic-tac-toe, because we can calculate enough.
As far as ELO goes, once God's ELO reaches 4000 points beyond the world champion at the time, he gains only 0.0000000008 points per win. It would take more than 1 billion games to gain one more point. It would take a while to make gains, but I suppose it would approach infinity.
04 Aug 06
3 edits
Originally posted by techsouthI wish you would forget about God. (I wish now that I had used a different thread title.) Don't you know there are people around here who believe that He speaks only to them and that the very idea of Him failing to win quickly with Black is an unforgivable blasphemy?
Assume for now that White cannot force a win from move 1.
But it is reasonable to think that white can at least force a draw from move 1.
Also, if Kasparov knows he is playing God (or anything that has infinite calculation ability), then he knows it is hopeless to strive for a win.
On the first move, there are 20 moves. Perhaps 6 of the 20 moves ore point. It would take a while to make gains, but I suppose it would approach infinity.
04 Aug 06
Originally posted by ThudanBlunderActually this thread is irrelevant and you should ask a mod to delete it. If there are any fascists it is the idiots such as the one who started this thread.
When I write 'God' I am referring to my concept of God, not yours. So there is no need to get on your high horse about anything. There are far too many religious fascists in the world already.
04 Aug 06
2 edits
Originally posted by z00tYour heartfelt religious convictions are clearly evident in the above post. No doubt when I get to Hell I will find you there, waiting and wondering what kept me.
If there are any fascists it is the idiots such as the one who started this thread.