I wanted to get into chess as an adult, with the aim of becoming a master. However, I found that even some people who had studied chess from an early age, and where chess still dominated their lives, they still didn't raise above IM or even master.
This put me off for a while, as I was the sort of person who needs to be the 'best' I can be and merely being good wasn't enough, especially with all the study that comes with it.
Perfect Information Game: On Chess
11–20 of 34 posts
Re: Perfect Information Game: On Chess
#12I don't mean to diminish the accomplishments or skill of chess players, but in my opinion being a perfect information game makes chess, like go, much less interesting. It means that, in principle, it is simply a matter of running Minimax on a sufficiently powerful computer, and the game can be solved. I do mean 'in principle': actually doing this is still well beyond the world's computational capabilities, though thi…
Regarding your surprise about chess being played as a sort of wargame: actually when used as such, they did include "fog of war": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegsspiel_(wargame)
See also:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriegspiel_(chess)
Re: Perfect Information Game: On Chess
#13For everyone interest in a very readable overview of chess history I suggest: http://www.amazon.com/s?search-alias=stripbooks&field-isbn=0...
Re: Perfect Information Game: On Chess
#14I don't mean to diminish the accomplishments or skill of chess players, but in my opinion being a perfect information game makes chess, like go, much less interesting. It means that, in principle, it is simply a matter of running Minimax on a sufficiently powerful computer, and the game can be solved. I do mean 'in principle': actually doing this is still well beyond the world's computational capabilities, though thi…
Yet we got poker solved (kind of - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheus_(poker_bot) ) earlier than chess. If you asked me before I knew it, I'd say chess is easier to solve.
Re: Perfect Information Game: On Chess
#15Gonzo style reporting of the chess scene. >> My own personal conception of existential dread is, like my inability to visualize, idiosyncratic. Many people, I think, are troubled by their own insignificance, preferring not to think about being a tiny part of a vanishing species in what couldn’t even be called a corner of the universe. Not me—I’m fine with that. ... That’s all infinity does, or rather doesn’t do. It d…
IMHO chess is portrayed like this by people not really exposed to it.
Re: Perfect Information Game: On Chess
#16I don't mean to diminish the accomplishments or skill of chess players, but in my opinion being a perfect information game makes chess, like go, much less interesting. It means that, in principle, it is simply a matter of running Minimax on a sufficiently powerful computer, and the game can be solved. I do mean 'in principle': actually doing this is still well beyond the world's computational capabilities, though thi…
You are absolutely right. Whoever has time for a long confirmation, can find it here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/bridgenot-chessis-the-ultimate-w...
For those who want something shorter I can say that based on your reasoning, bridge is much more interesting. This may be sound as a joke since in US bridge is mostly played by old people, but is true.
The most important reason is that bridge will never be perfectly solved by computers. Someone said in this thread "for imperfect information (games), there is still a perfect, computable solution". This can be true, but the interesting point is that this perfect computable move may be the wrong move by far.
In order to explain this I will say that in bridge there are many situations where you have to choose between two paths. Path one is a winner 65% of the time according to mathematical analysis. Path two is a winner 5% of the time according to the same analysis above. However path two is the winner, because the opponents have also incomplete information and even according to their BEST analysis (mathematical or psychological) they must follow up with a movement that will make you win 100%.
Unfortunately as the author said, this cannot be appreciated if you are not very familiar with the game.
Since you mentioned generals and the like, Eisenhower was a bridge fanatic. At present time it is enjoyed by the two richest men in Earth, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.
Re: Perfect Information Game: On Chess
#17I don't mean to diminish the accomplishments or skill of chess players, but in my opinion being a perfect information game makes chess, like go, much less interesting. It means that, in principle, it is simply a matter of running Minimax on a sufficiently powerful computer, and the game can be solved. I do mean 'in principle': actually doing this is still well beyond the world's computational capabilities, though thi…
I disagree with your premise. While it's true that in theory, we could run minimax on a sufficiently powerful computer to solve chess and go, we can't in reality solve chess and go with computers. And even if we could solve them with powerful computers, human brains still cannot. You still have less than perfect information about the decision tree, and you have to pick what you think is the best move from all of the…
> we can't in reality solve chess and go with computers
I don't think this is correct. Both could be solved by determining the perfect move for each board arrangement, leading to a very simple, but very data-heavy solution (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number - number of chess positions somewhere below 2^155 - and also need to track for each position whether can empassant for each pawn like X-FEN does, and http://tromp.github.io/go/legal.html - number of Go positions for 19x19 board ~2.081681994 * 10^170, though other-sized boards would each need their own set of solutions). In addition, both Chess and Go engines have beaten masters:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human%E2%80%93computer_chess_m...
http://www.wired.com/2016/03/googles-ai-wins-fifth-final-gam...
You could be correct about the human brain being incapable of storing all of the Chess or Go solutions. While the brain could perhaps memorize enough strategies and board positions to substitute, the theoretical maximum of 2.5 PB may not be enough to hold all board positions and metadata.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-memory...
Re: Perfect Information Game: On Chess
#18I don't mean to diminish the accomplishments or skill of chess players, but in my opinion being a perfect information game makes chess, like go, much less interesting. It means that, in principle, it is simply a matter of running Minimax on a sufficiently powerful computer, and the game can be solved. I do mean 'in principle': actually doing this is still well beyond the world's computational capabilities, though thi…
Mathematics also has perfect information, but people find plenty of aesthetic appeal in that. (Though in many respects, competitive chess is not at all like mathematics. An uncooperative opponent and time constraints are important additions to the possibility of beautiful moves.)
Re: Perfect Information Game: On Chess
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree with your premise. While it's true that in theory, we could run minimax on a sufficiently powerful computer to solve chess and go, we can't in reality solve chess and go with computers. And even if we could solve them with powerful computers, human brains still cannot. You still have less than perfect information about the decision tree, and you have to pick what you think is the best move from all of the…
> we can't in reality solve chess and go with computers I don't think this is correct. Both could be solved by determining the perfect move for each board arrangement, leading to a very simple, but very data-heavy solution (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number - number of chess positions somewhere below 2^155 - and also need to track for each position whether can empassant for each pawn like X-FEN does,…
"In reality" means that the working set of memory and time complexity on solving Chess (let alone Go) is vastly too large for computers now and in the future. I don't get why you tacked on computers beating grandmasters/9-dans, since that has nothing to do with solving the game.
Oh you added something on the end. Well, augmenting a human brain doesn't change the search space of solving Chess and Go (especially Go). You may be underestimating how large those problems are.
Re: Perfect Information Game: On Chess
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree with your premise. While it's true that in theory, we could run minimax on a sufficiently powerful computer to solve chess and go, we can't in reality solve chess and go with computers. And even if we could solve them with powerful computers, human brains still cannot. You still have less than perfect information about the decision tree, and you have to pick what you think is the best move from all of the…
> we can't in reality solve chess and go with computers I don't think this is correct. Both could be solved by determining the perfect move for each board arrangement, leading to a very simple, but very data-heavy solution (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number - number of chess positions somewhere below 2^155 - and also need to track for each position whether can empassant for each pawn like X-FEN does,…
I don't think you realize how large of a number 2^155 is. The number of atoms comprising the entire planet earth is on the order of 10^49 or 2^162 [0]. Thus, to store all possible chess positions using only the material available on planet earth you'd have only 2^7 or 128 atoms available to store each one. All of this is ignoring the amount of energy you'd need to operate such a device, which is even more staggering.
[0] http://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/atoms.ht...