Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

bobbym · 2011-01-21 21:09:42

Nope!

From a Chess Computers Point of View!...it does not Need any Psychology when it can Calculate 100 % Accurate Check Mates in 30 + Moves! If it Needs to!

Does not need any psychology?! You make it sound like a choice. It cannot get any psychology or have any. The programmers have not figured out how to program that in. So, there is the secret of computer intelligence, humans!

No engine ever made or very likely in the future can search 30 moves ahead. 30 ply is not 30 moves ahead. 30 moves with the alpha beta algorithm and minimax examines only a small portion of the game tree. They do not have any more of an idea of what the right moves are than you do.

You would lose your House/Flat Car/Bicycle Dog/Cat/Mouse... and Everything else you own! If ever you made that Bet against any of the Worlds Top Chess Engines as of 2011 and Many Engines Before!.

Colorful but the results just do not back you up. Of course you can continue believing that for as long as you want.

When you Test Chess Engines...You Don't use Opening Books..You Don't use Endgame Data Base..You Don't test them at One Time Interval,Etc.

Wrong again! If you strip an engine of its opening book it can hardly get out of the opening without a lost position. Despite their supposed great look ahead they still do not know where the pawns and pieces belong. They rely on their massive books given to them by human programmers. Without those books frankly they are awful. You do not play much chess do you? And never against an engine obviously.

By the way you have answered none of my points. You keep coming back with statements that sound like a commercial. An advertisement about the new and improved engine that is better then the one 3 weeks ago. The fact that you think the encyclopedia brittanica has intelligence because it is stuffed full of facts that humans put in there is mystifying.

I know you will not get down here because you are not reading these posts. I must ask a question what is GiB?

GeniusIsBack · 2011-01-21 23:00:11

comment removed - insulting, flaming.

GiB. All of the above....is So Unbelievably Funny that it Needs no Comment!

Now I am 100% Convinced that you would lose to even the Earliest ZX Spectrum! Commodore 64!
Atari 2600! TRS-80 Color Computer 2! TI 99 / 4A! Timex Sinclair 1000 Etc. Old Chess Programs.

bobbym · 2011-01-22 14:04:31

You do not have to copy my entire post even the signature. You should at least put quotes around someone else's work.

All of the above....is So Unbelievably Funny that it Needs no Comment!

Maybe, you have no real comment...

Those are not the earliest machines? Have you heard of Sargon? CC7?

GeniusIsBack · 2011-01-23 00:10:36

You Would Even Lose To This!

http://www.realussr.com/ussr/check-mate-a-chess-computer/

GiB.

bobbym · 2011-01-23 00:21:05

Did you know back then I used to beat Sargon and Chess Challenger 7 blindfolded? Yes, even I could play pretty good blindfold chess. The computers do not play significantly better than they did then. They are stronger no doubt because machines are faster but they do not play any better as far as positional understanding. They are weeeeeeeeeeakkkk!

The humans back then were the problem. There were too many better players.

GeniusIsBack · 2011-01-23 00:54:03

"They are stronger no doubt because machines are faster but they do not play any better as far as positional understanding"

GiB.

Deep Blue v Garry Kasparov - Game 2 Position 36 White To Move -1997 Re-Match.

BC2 E4 And QF2 B6 Are Very Positional Moves!

As an Example from What must be By Now Millions of Positional Moves Played by Chess Programs!

GeniusIsBack · 2011-01-23 04:46:21

Quote: bobbym No engine ever made or very likely in the future can search 30 moves ahead.

GiB.

Don't Know How many Times I have to Keep doing this!? Until the Penny Drops!:)

**********************************************************************************************************************

Longest Forced Check Mates/Conversions: So Far!?

3 Pieces:
KP-K, 28 moves DTM, 19 moves DTC.
4 Pieces:
KR-KN, 40 moves DTM [27 moves DTC].
KBN-K, 33 moves DTC&M
KQ-KR, 31 moves DTC (that is, capturing the rook)
KQ-KP, 27 moves DTC
5 Pieces:
KPP-KP, 127 moves DTM (turning into a KQP-KQ win in 122).
KQP-KQ, 124 moves DTM, 114 moves DTC.
KNN-KP, 115 moves DTM, 114 moves DTC, 82 moves DTZ (distance to zeroing - meaning an irreversible move, one that puts the OTB 50-move count back to zero; in this case a pawn move).
Other maximal wins of over 50 moves include (highlighted are the two most practical by far):
KQ-KRP, 79 moves DTC; KBN-KN, 76 moves DTC; KQ-KBB, 71 moves DTC; KBB-KN, 66 moves DTC; KQ-KNN, 63 moves DTC; KRB-KB, 62 moves DTC; KQR-KQ, 60 moves DTC; KRP-KR, 60 moves DTC; KRB-KR, 59 moves DTC.
6 Pieces:
KRN-KNN, 262 moves DTM, 243 moves DTC.
KRRP-KQ, 253 moves DTM.
(KRP-KNN and KRN-KNP of 253 and 252 moves DTM respectively are essentially of the record endgame type, with a N promotion on move 1 in both cases. Other 200+ setups also turn quickly into the one of the two above following promotions.)
KRB-KNN, 238 moves DTM, 223 moves DTC.
KRN-KBN, 209 moves DTM, 190 moves DTC.
KQPP-KQ, 182 moves DTM.
KBBP-KR, 180 moves DTM.
KQN-KRR, 174 moves DTM, 153 moves DTC.
7 Pieces:
KQN-KRBN, 517 moves DTC [+8 to mate] (Entry No.316)
KQBN-KQB (opp. color B), 330 moves DTC (Entry No.311)
KQBN-KQN, 317 moves DTC [+33 to mate] (Entry No.311)
KRRN-KRR, 290 moves DTC [+8 to mate] (Entry No.298)

bobbym · 2011-01-23 16:01:25

Whoa! Whoa! That is with tablebases. The positions are stored in memory and the hard drive, There is no calculation to 317 moves! They just read the moves off. Even you or I can do that if you put it in book form.

GeniusIsBack · 2011-01-23 23:04:37

Quote: bobbym No engine ever made or very likely in the future can search 30 moves ahead.

GiB.

When Using Table Bases the Computer still has to Search! + Moves Ahead! which Again is Opposite to your Quote above!
You could not Store or Search to 317 Moves as well as Many of the Other Searches Above.

To Prove the Point in Another Way!...

Deep Thought,1990,FENG-HSIUNG HSU, THOMAS ANANTHARAMAN, MURRAY CAMPBELL and ANDREAS NOWATZYK.

Speed is the key to work now under way at the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, where the next-generation machine is now being designed. It should out calculate its predecessor by a factor of at least 1,000. The machine we have in mind will therefore examine more than a billion positions per second, enough to search 14 or 15 plies deep in most cases and from 30 to 60 plies in forcing lines.

GiB.

Deep Thought was Old Technology Compared to Deep Blue in 1997 and yet even Deep Thought could Search 30 to 60 plies in Forcing Lines ( 30 Moves ) So for Deep Blue to Search 30 + Moves would be no Problem!

bobbym · 2011-01-24 04:37:38

Forcing lines are very rare. They consist of lots of checks. You are not correct, with a tablebase the engine has no calculating to do. It just reads the analysis for the entire game tree. This is only possible for limited endgames. There is no calculations in games to 317 ply!

GeniusIsBack · 2011-01-24 05:15:19

It's No Good "bobbym" Your in a Corner and you can't get out of it! CHECK!

All my Quotes are Based on Calculation/Search of Some Kind!

I love the Way you Skip..." Deep Thought was Old Technology Compared to Deep Blue in 1997 and yet even Deep Thought could Search 30 to 60 plies in Forcing Lines ( 30 Moves ) So for Deep Blue to Search 30 + Moves would be no Problem! "

And Now CHECKMATE!!

GiB.

bobbym · 2011-01-24 11:16:41

That is not search through a tree. That is just position lookup. It is no more difficult than reading a dictionary. Tablebases are not calculation, sorry. Deep blue or deep blue whale could not analyze a tree for a full 60 moves! Where did you get that it could? Did you get that from the newspaper?

If they were print that in book form you or I would now play simple position endgames perfectly. Why not they store every possible position and correct moves all the way to the end. The calculation is done when you create the tablebase. Of course they are huge ( combinatorial explosion ) and it can only be done for comparatively small positions.

GeniusIsBack · 2011-01-24 12:32:22

1994, Deep Thought 2 won the North American Computer Chess Championship for the fifth time, with its rating estimated at around 2600. It was sponsored by IBM. Some engineers who designed Deep Thought also worked in the design of Deep Thought 2. Its algorithms were quite simple evaluation functions, but it could examine half a billion chess positions per move in tournament games, which is sufficient to reach depth of 10 or 11 moves ahead in complex positions. Despite that, using the technique of singular extensions it could also follow lines of forced moves that reach even further, which is how it once found a checkmate in 37 moves.

comment removed - insulting, flaming.

Last edited by GeniusIsBack (2011-01-25 01:40:24)

bobbym · 2011-01-24 12:37:55

That is undoubtedly true. Again, that fact does not imply that you are right. In most of this you are in error. I do understand that it is your right to remain in error for as long as you want.

dolgopolov · 2011-01-26 00:43:02

can somebody explain to me what the argument is here ? are you talking about the end of the earth or about chess ?

bobbym · 2011-01-26 00:45:01

That is a good question. The originator of the thread has bounced around a bit.

dolgopolov · 2011-01-26 00:57:07

if you are talking about if a computer or a human is better..

what do you mean by better?

if a computer play the best players in the world and win every time, then that mean it can win all the time.

but what a human can do that a computer cant i would say is make up new defences, attacking methods, etc, a computer cant (usually) do this. a human has the creative mind

also the world will end if and only if the world doesn't end tomorrow

phrontister · 2011-01-26 01:46:14

Hi Bobby & GiB,

Here's the result of a short tournament that I ran on Arena between some engines that are highly-fancied on the www.

"1" denotes a win, "0" a loss and "=" a draw.

I noticed that Houdini moved quicker than the others and generally had time up its sleeve near the end. In close end-games that probably gave it a winning advantage, as it won several times from near-equal positions (according to both engines) that were draw-bound within a minute or so.

I dusted off my old Novag Constellation 3.6mhz and challenged Houdini, getting soundly thrashed in the two games played. To give Houdini a reasonable chance of winning I'd set pondering time to 1 minute for my NC3.6 and 5 seconds for Houdini. No doubt my NC3.6 would have won any further games played, but I refrained from humiliating H as it was midnight-snack time; and besides, what's the point of embarking on foregone conclusions anyway?

Last edited by phrontister (2011-01-26 01:51:15)

bobbym · 2011-01-26 01:52:53

Hi phrontister;

I noticed in the 10 min blitz he lost to Rybka 4 4 - 2.

I know those engines well. Houdini is a fast tactician but I think Rybka 4 plays better especially against me.

phrontister · 2011-01-26 02:11:12

Hi Bobbym;

True. But in two other 10-minute tournaments I ran between fewer players Houdini won (it's probably agoraphobic).

In a match just against Rybka 4 it won 5.5/10 to 4.5/10, while against Rybka 4 & Stockfish the scores were 9.5/14 to Houdini, 6.5/14 to Rybka 4 and 5/14 to Stockfish.

I wasn't going to let on to GiB.

GeniusIsBack · 2011-01-26 02:12:45

Hi phrontister

I used to have a Novag Constelation 3.6 and Thought at the time it was The D'sBlox (Only a Few Native People will Understand this!) But for the others...Very Good!
I also had many other Dedicated Electronic Chess Boards...Then the Software became so Strong! and so it was Good Bye to Them.

GiB.

bobbym · 2011-01-26 02:15:23

He is Houdini's public relation manager, I think, so he is biased.

The world championships are coming up soon at tournament time limits. We will see then if Rybka can hold on to its title.

I did not know you were interested in computer chess. Are you using the new Arena 3.0?

GeniusIsBack · 2011-01-26 02:22:10

comment removed - insulting, flaming.

bobbym · 2011-01-26 02:25:18

First fangs and louse and now sheep.

Why will it not be allowed and how do you know that? Is it a clone of an engine?

phrontister · 2011-01-26 02:29:11

Hi Bobby,

Arena 3.0 Build 2542

I belonged to a chess club at school but was never too serious about it after that and played infrequently since.

I liked holding little tournaments between Sargon, ChessMaster, Novag Constellation and a Hanimex computer I had. Haven't played chess for years, but played 25 or so games of Loser's chess over Christmas and quite enjoyed it. Winning, that is...or did I mean losing? Interesting game play!

Last edited by phrontister (2011-01-26 02:32:50)

Math Is Fun Forum

#101 2011-01-21 21:09:42

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#102 2011-01-21 23:00:11

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#103 2011-01-22 14:04:31

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#104 2011-01-23 00:10:36

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#105 2011-01-23 00:21:05

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#106 2011-01-23 00:54:03

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#107 2011-01-23 04:46:21

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#108 2011-01-23 16:01:25

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#109 2011-01-23 23:04:37

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#110 2011-01-24 04:37:38

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#111 2011-01-24 05:15:19

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#112 2011-01-24 11:16:41

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#113 2011-01-24 12:32:22

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#114 2011-01-24 12:37:55

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#115 2011-01-26 00:43:02

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#116 2011-01-26 00:45:01

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#117 2011-01-26 00:57:07

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#118 2011-01-26 01:46:14

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#119 2011-01-26 01:52:53

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#120 2011-01-26 02:11:12

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#121 2011-01-26 02:12:45

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#122 2011-01-26 02:15:23

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#123 2011-01-26 02:22:10

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#124 2011-01-26 02:25:18

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

#125 2011-01-26 02:29:11

Re: Is It Possible To Calculate The End of The Earth's Existence!?

Board footer