I Who would win a perfect game of chess?

[BWV]

This is the latest 1000 games between AZ and SF8. There is no apparent advantage for the second move in Shogi or Go. but a clear difference between AZ's results playing as white vs black. I don't think it has been released, but the results of AZ's training games would be interesting in this regard.

It does seem reasonable to view these games as an approaching perfect play, much like if we trained AZ to play checkers it would get close to the solved game results

https://deepmind.com/blog/alphazero-shedding-new-light-grand-games-chess-shogi-and-go/

 

[PeroK]

You can't win a game of chess in 1 move.

Yes you can.

Fischer-Panno, Palma 1970:

1. c4

And black resigned.

 

[PAllen]

View attachment 238143

This is the latest 1000 games between AZ and SF8. There is no apparent advantage for the second move in Shogi or Go. but a clear difference between AZ's results playing as white vs black. I don't think it has been released, but the results of AZ's training games would be interesting in this regard.

It does seem reasonable to view these games as an approaching perfect play, much like if we trained AZ to play checkers it would get close to the solved game results

https://deepmind.com/blog/alphazero-shedding-new-light-grand-games-chess-shogi-and-go/

I agree this is evidence, but I don't take it as strongly as you do.

1) As I argue in my post #75, there is clear evidence AZ's play is not perfect, so you can't draw any firm conclusions about perfect play from it.
2) I actually think it is very unlikely that AZ training on checkers would replicate the solved play. Of course, unless someone does this, it is anybody's guess.

 

[BeedS]

Yes you can.

Fischer-Panno, Palma 1970:

1. c4

And black resigned.

A resignation is not a played win.

 

[PeroK]

A resignation is not a played win.

How many top level games end in checkmate? Almost none. Almost all wins are resignations, or a loss on time.

 

[BeedS]

Almost all wins are resignations, or a loss on time.

Resignations because they know they are going to lose, you don't know you are going to lose after white makes the first move.

 

[PAllen]

Resignations because they know they are going to lose, you don't know you are going to lose after white makes the first move.

You might if you are Panno playing Fischer in 1970,

 

[BeedS]

Resignations because they know they are going to lose, you don't know you are going to lose after white makes the first move.

With equally skilled players

 

[PeroK]

Resignations because they know they are going to lose, you don't know you are going to lose after white makes the first move.

That's immaterial. You can win a game of chess in one move. Fischer did. It's in the record books. A win is a win.

If you'd said you can't checkmate an opponent in one move, that would be different.

 

[Klystron]

How about we have a duel. We stand 10 feet apart. I shoot first, then you shoot. Completely balanced, right?

In fairness, this duel analogy does not include any defensive moves or strategy. Actual duels of this form supposedly proved "honor" of both duelists; a weird form of trust that the opponents deliberately miss their shots while standing upright and still as targets. Sheer idiocy IMO particularly if the duel was caused by one person calling the opponent untrustworthy. (See A. Hamilton vs. A. Burr.)

Dueling with swords, staffs, knives, or bare-handed allows defensive moves, tactics and defensive strategies. Physical strength, training, speed and stamina determine outcomes to a large extent, particularly expertise in fencing with swords and knives. According to some sources, this expert advantage led to the stupidity of pistol dueling as described. Little skill required to miss or stand still; just steady nerves.

 

[BeedS]

"Who would win a perfect game of chess?"
Nobody, they would both resign on move 0 and fall back to negotiations...

 

[mfb]

Can we come back to the topic, please?

 

[mitchell porter]

Chess is unsolvable with traditional computers

You seem to be assuming some kind of "brute force" approach, where every possible move sequence is explicitly played out. But reasoning allows you to deal with large classes of positions all at once. For example, just knowing the remaining pieces - regardless of where they are on the board - is enough to tell you that certain endgame positions are a draw, or a win, etc. Maybe there's a way to classify midgame positions into a thousand or a million different cases, that allows chess to be solved. In that case, whether a computer can solve chess would depend on how smart its algorithm is.

 

[BeedS]

Nobody, they would both resign on move 0 and fall back to negotiations...

I call this tactic "dressing up the straw-man"

If you'd said you can't checkmate an opponent in one move, that would be different.

You can't checkmate in one move.

Are you familiar with the chess term zugzwang?

Understood it but didn't know what is was named, thanks.

At present is simply unknown whether or not the starting position is a deep zugzwang for whoever moves first.

Your argument simply has no logical force whatsoever.

It could also be a deep zugzwang in favor of whoever moves second.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

So, I played the other day against the computer in the level of grandmaster in chess.com (i.e level 10).

You wouldn't expect me to win with white, but I guess this was one of those days everything clicked.
I believe this means in the end white always wins in a perfect game.
I used the hints' option, but I didn't always take the first option it suggested me to do (since if I had done that the game would have ended in a draw).

I am attaching a .txt file with the moves, it took something like 93 moves in total.
Cheers!

 

[mfb]

I believe this means in the end white always wins in a perfect game.

Why would it mean that? Why would it give any indication of that?
We have chess programs that can perform beyond the level of the very best humans - and as far as I know you are not among them - and even they can't answer the question about a perfect game because they are far away from perfect play.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Why would it mean that? Why would it give any indication of that?
We have chess programs that can perform beyond the level of the very best humans - and as far as I know you are not among them - and even they can't answer the question about a perfect game because they are far away from perfect play.

How would one know when a perfect game has been played?

 

[zoki85]

While chess hasn't been solved yet, other games have. For example, I know that in in some games, like connect four, if both players play perfectly, the player who goes first will always win. On the other hand, some games, like tic tac toe, a perfect game will result in a draw; in fact, I recently found out that this is true for checkers as well. What I'm wondering though, is if it's possible to predict which scenario a perfect game of chess would lead to even without having fully solved it yet, and if it is possible, what the answer is.

Gardner chess (5x5 board) is weakly solved by help of computers analysis.
Result of the perfect play of both sides is a draw.
See the paper:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7118

It is naturally to expect that chess on 8x8 board is a draw as well.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Gardner chess (5x5 board) is weakly solved by help of computers analysis.
Result of the perfect play of both sides is a draw.
See the paper:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7118

It is naturally to expect that chess on 8x8 board is a draw as well.

A 5x5 board wouldn't include all of the chess pieces of the original 8x8 game, so I don't see how is your conclusion any valid here.

We might as well play a game of 16x16 chess on a round table...
Well it's of course makes you generalize the chess game to a 2nx2n or 2n+1x2n+1 chess board... quite tough indeed.

 

[zoki85]

A 5x5 board wouldn't include all of the chess pieces of the original 8x8 game, so I don't see how is your conclusion any valid here.

It includes pawns and one of each kind. That's something

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

It includes pawns and one of each kind. That's something

Still, it's a different game.

I wonder how would one solve the generalized problem?
Certainly not in this millennium...

 

[zoki85]

Certainly not in this millennium...

Only if powerful enough quantum computer find a forced win for one side.
But, that's not going to happen since game chess is most likey a draw

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Only if powerful enough quantum computer find a forced win for one side.
But, that's not going to happen since game chess is most likey a draw

It's just a game... (and white wins in the end ;-)).

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Well I've beaten myself again.

This time it took only 86 steps.
Quite an improvement.

 

[mfb]

How would one know when a perfect game has been played?

A perfect player - an entity that can fully analyze the remaining game tree - will be able to tell you. Otherwise you can't be sure. It's still possible to spot errors even without having a perfect player, of course.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

A perfect player - an entity that can fully analyze the remaining game tree - will be able to tell you. Otherwise you can't be sure. It's still possible to spot errors even without having a perfect player, of course.

Well, in the two games that I won I didn't necessarily make the first option of move the computer hinted me to make; unless of course it was the red option and not pink which from what I gather is the optimal move in that instance.(edit: it seems the red is on green square, so it doesn't really matter).
I understand that the algorithms that the computer uses in level 10 are just not optimal.
How many games should one win in white until it is settled?
I don't know how to start calculating all the number of perfect games needed.

 

[jbriggs444]

How many games should one win in white until it is settled?

If you are adopting this proof technique then the answer is: "all of them until all opponent strategies have been exhausted".

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

If you are adopting this proof technique then the answer is: "all of them until all opponent strategies have been exhausted".

how many are there exactly?
How would you calculate this number on the simple original 8x8 game?

 

[SSequence]

Maybe this is relevant?
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1406919

 

[jedishrfu]

There is really only one answer here: Mary Poppins

Who is practically perfect in every way.

I don't know if she ever played chess though.