[Jlall]

jdonn, on May 4 2010, 05:33 PM, said:

My point was it seemed like you were just repeating awm's point. Whatever sorry anyway I obviously see it now, yay me!

Did you know I once came in 3rd in my county in high school chess? Frightening. I know of at least one (at the time) 11 year old girl and one 7 year old boy who were both clearly better than I was, not to mention 4 or 5 people who played in the actual event. But that me, who may have been as high as a 1300 player, would slaughter the current me who I doubt is even a 1000 player.

I think I'm hopeless at chess again (not that I was ever beyond a novice). I gave it a go for like a month but I lost my skillz in the mental hospital

I might do some kind of year long game challenge where I have to reach a certain rating on yahoo in backgammon, hearts, spades, and chess, as well as maintain a certain long term robo dupe average, and also maintain a certain winrate in both limit hold em and no limit hold em or something. Been thinking of the details, I would probably need action on it, but if I did it chess would definitely be the hardest (and I would make it the lowest necessary rating, like I'm thinking 3000 for hearts and spades, and 2000 for chess [2000 yahoo rating not FIDE lol!]).

[jdonn]

I was between a 1400 and 1700 player on yahoo for years. Played over 5k games there, amazingly. Would never have happened if bbo existed. I definitely padded the stats by beating up weaklings, I rarely played anyone even as high as 100 below me lol.

[Jlall]

jdonn, on May 4 2010, 07:38 PM, said:

I was between a 1400 and 1700 player on yahoo for years. Played over 5k games there, amazingly. Would never have happened if bbo existed. I definitely padded the stats by beating up weaklings, I rarely played anyone even as high as 100 below me lol.

I was 1500 and finally breaking out of the beginner room into the intermediate room lol. But I got standard jlall serious about it and did tactics problems on a site non stop, studied from waitzkins software, watched videos on chesstv, bought a database, learned how to convert yahoo games to pgn and saved all my games and analyzed it with rybka/annotated them/etc. Basically got obsessed.

Fournier used to watch my games and it was standard for me to be down a pawn out of the opening, then up a piece after the midgame, then lose the endgame. Basically I was only good at tactics/midgame, but I was learning some endgame stuff so that was helping. Fournier= god at endgames btw.

Chess is a great game, much respect to people who are good at it.

[Mbodell]

Jlall, on May 4 2010, 02:02 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 4 2010, 04:54 PM, said:

That just goes to lack of computing power. If computers don't like a sacrifice without payoff in the near future it's only because there are too many permutations for it to handle in the distant future.

Obviously, I don't really get your point?

The fact that chess and go are not solved is because of lack of processing power. They are games of perfect information. With infinite processing power, we would know everything about perfect information games.

But in both cases it is doubtful the will be solved ever, certainly not with the current approaches.

The game tree complexity of chess is somewhere in the order of 10^123. The number of possible positions is around 10^50. To put that in perspective the number of atoms in the observable universe is around 10^80.

Even if you were doing more than a million positions each microseconds it would take roughly 10^80 years of processing. That is one year for each atom in the observable universe.

So just "faster computers" are unlikely to solve chess.

Go is even worse (I.e., more complex) than chess in that there are about 10^172 board positions.

Certainly if we came up with a different computing model (I.e., quantum computers or some other fundamentally different approach than exhaustive search and minimax evaluation) then maybe we would solve it. So we can't really say never, although it seems quite doubtful.

[Jlall]

I dunno, people thought all sorts of things were impossible. We fly now. We fly to the freaking moon. I would be surprised if chess never gets solved. I'm sure in 100 years some amazing things will have happened with technology that we cannot even imagine yet.

[cherdanno]

Mbodell, on May 4 2010, 08:53 PM, said:

Jlall, on May 4 2010, 02:02 PM, said:

The fact that chess and go are not solved is because of lack of processing power. They are games of perfect information. With infinite processing power, we would know everything about perfect information games.

But in both cases it is doubtful the will be solved ever, certainly not with the current approaches.

The game tree complexity of chess is somewhere in the order of 10^123. The number of possible positions is around 10^50. To put that in perspective the number of atoms in the observable universe is around 10^80.

Even if you were doing more than a million positions each microseconds it would take roughly 10^80 years of processing. That is one year for each atom in the observable universe.

Hmm. I find this kind of argument ok for, say, a NYT article about computer chess. But I think on BBF we could do better. Just because the game tree is that big doesn't mean you have to analyze a tree that big. The size of the game tree of gomoku (five-in-a-row) is much bigger but still it has been analyzed by computers for a 15x15 board.

Also, "the game tree of go is bigger than the game tree of chess" is really not the reason why computers suck at go (compared to chess).

[mike777]

1) If we say a chess player is good....brilliant...whatever.........can we....I mean you......agree that means he is good.....not just some computer random guy?


2_) other........can we at least we agree he is fun guy.......give him a drink...

[MarkDean]

Jlall, on May 4 2010, 05:50 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 4 2010, 07:38 PM, said:

I was between a 1400 and 1700 player on yahoo for years. Played over 5k games there, amazingly. Would never have happened if bbo existed. I definitely padded the stats by beating up weaklings, I rarely played anyone even as high as 100 below me lol.

I was 1500 and finally breaking out of the beginner room into the intermediate room lol. But I got standard jlall serious about it and did tactics problems on a site non stop, studied from waitzkins software, watched videos on chesstv, bought a database, learned how to convert yahoo games to pgn and saved all my games and analyzed it with rybka/annotated them/etc. Basically got obsessed.

Fournier used to watch my games and it was standard for me to be down a pawn out of the opening, then up a piece after the midgame, then lose the endgame. Basically I was only good at tactics/midgame, but I was learning some endgame stuff so that was helping. Fournier= god at endgames btw.

Chess is a great game, much respect to people who are good at it.

I am the same way. I dominate in middle games, particularly in open ones. But I always am losing coming out of the opening and I better win it in the middle game because I am terrible at end games.

Openings is part of the reason I quit serious chess. Memorizing seems like a pain, and it also doesn't seem right to me: almost like cheating.

[Lobowolf]

Aside from a 4-game rated match a few years ago, the most recent chess event I played in was the U.S. Amateur Team West (4-person teams, average team rating must be <2200), on a team comprised of all bridge players.

[Jlall]

lobowolf how are you godly at everything

[Lobowolf]

Jlall, on May 5 2010, 02:55 AM, said:

lobowolf how are you godly at everything

Ungodly at chess, but expertly (low 2100s). In this case, it is readily explained by a misspent youth. The year I turned 17, I was the 8th most active USCF member.

[Codo]

Back to the roots:

It is a great game with very few blunders, both play great chess.

And the choose of the opening:

White is trying to win and in the moment it seems to be easier to reach a draw with black against the open openings. But the catalan is still a big threat for black, so it is no big surprise that they try this opening.

[gwnn]

Still, why only d5 as black? There is Kings Indian, Nimzo-Indian, I think the Dutch is out of expert favour but not theoretically flawed, there are so many awesome stuff against d4. And anyway in past World Championship matches there was ample roles assigned to Ruy Lopez and Sicilian, still feels completely weird to me how monotonous this final is.

BTW when I used to be somewhat serious at chess I was clearly superior than my peers in the opening roughly equal in the middle game but much worse in the endgame. But I made a lot of game-ending stupid mistakes I would open up a clear advantage during the first 20 moves because I was more prepared then I'd lose my queen to some petty 1 move trap. That's why I gave up it was annoying and seemingly inevitable:(

[Codo]

Dutch is flawed... you can google about the last apperance of this opening at a world championship...I would guess the answer will be: Maybe in a team tourney, but never in a single WC final. (Just a guess).

Kings Indian was tried by Kasparov and he failed against Karpov with this opening. It is tricky, it is great against you and me, but not safe enough against the Top players in such an important final. With black you do usually not play for the best possible score, but for the safest way for a draw. And the Kings Indian (or scizilian) is not the right tool for this.

Sicilain and the ruy Lopez had been the theme of more then one WC final. I have no idea why they are not en vogue atm. Maybe because nobody likes to play e4 in such a final because it is too hard to win against the scot or the russian defence?

And besides: There had been many WC finals with just a few openings. Not so unusual at all.

[cherdanno]

gwnn, on May 5 2010, 05:29 AM, said:

Still, why only d5 as black? There is Kings Indian, Nimzo-Indian, I think the Dutch is out of expert favour but not theoretically flawed, there are so many awesome stuff against d4. And anyway in past World Championship matches there was ample roles assigned to Ruy Lopez and Sicilian, still feels completely weird to me how monotonous this final is.

But they started to diverge as early as move 5 in the recent games! In earlier WCs, they (I think Kasparov-Karpov) followed the same line of Spanish opening until move 12 dozens of times.

Anyway, it has certainly to do with risk aversion. If they would choose a different line, they would have prepared it less, and would have to hope the opponent also had it prepared less. Meanwhile, they may have found an improvement in the line of the previous game that would give them a promising position, so unless the opponent has found an earlier improvement, it sounds like a good idear to try it...

[y66]

From Chess News:

In the post-match press conference the player's perception seem to be different to those analysing the position on the outside. Computers weren't much use in looking at this position but on ICC Pentala Harikrishna had suggested the winning idea eventually played in the game many hours before. The defence to this had also been found with the relatively simple concept of protecting the h-pawn with the bishop and using the king to stop the d-pawn. It also isn't clear whether Anand can't just keep the King on g6 and then shadow black's king across to the queen-side as an alternative. When Anand played 53...Kf7 it seemed clear he was heading for the first drawing idea. So 54....Bc6? came as a real surprise. Apparently this reasoning was not at all what was going on in the minds of either of the players and it shows just how difficult this ending is in practice.

Veselin Topalov: When the knight came to d6 I evaluated the position as winning after that I'm not sure my opponent could save himself.

Anand: I totally misplayed it with f4, maybe bishop takes e3 was a better move or Be7. After that this bishop of opposite coloured ending was very close, somehow I didn't see a forced way, obviously Kg8 is just a blunder, I mean Bc6.

It maybe the position is still a draw, I didn't see it.

[Phil]

Jlall, on May 5 2010, 02:55 AM, said:

lobowolf how are you godly at everything

He usually won't toot his own horn, so I'll mention that he used to be a stand-up comedian.

Maybe a magician too - dunno.

[gwnn]

I bet Lobowolf wouldn't have moved Bc6 there!

[jjbrr]

♥ Danish Gambit

Using it against someone who has never seen it before is so awesome. They think you're a drooler and then they realize they're about to get carved like a turkey.

[y66]

Phil, on May 5 2010, 09:34 AM, said:

Jlall, on May 5 2010, 02:55 AM, said:

lobowolf how are you godly at everything

He usually won't toot his own horn, so I'll mention that he used to be a stand-up comedian.

Maybe a magician too - dunno.

His lines in Pulp Fiction were some of the best ever: "If I'm curt with you, it's because time is a factor".