## which would take more moves to win

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: bob, hgm, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
bob
Posts: 20916
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

### Re: which would take more moves to win

Uri Blass wrote:
duncan wrote:a top gm playing komodo with knight handicap

or 2 computers one with a knight handicap but both with access to a 32 piece tablebase

and how many moves is the former ?
What is the average number of moves that top programs need to win with black when white is without knight b1 against them selves?

I believe that it is less than 80 and it is not going up with longer time control.

If I am right then it support my theory that black mates in less than 80 moves

[D]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/R1BQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
Note that "supporting the theory" is a far cry from "proving the theory" which is the key problem here....

EroSennin
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:26 am

### Re: which would take more moves to win

bob wrote: That could be done, but what does it prove? Computers still don't play anywhere near perfectly, even with queens removed.
I will patiently wait for your proof too

bob
Posts: 20916
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

### Re: which would take more moves to win

EroSennin wrote:
bob wrote: That could be done, but what does it prove? Computers still don't play anywhere near perfectly, even with queens removed.
I will patiently wait for your proof too
Where do I need a proof to say "I don't know?" Try to read a bit before making such comments. I have continually stated "we don't know whether a knight wins or not, either with perfect play or perfect vs a GM."

My proof is easy: There is NO data supporting ANYTHING about expected results with perfect play, other than in the simple endgames we can get perfect play in today (7 total pieces and fewer).

If you want proof of no perfect play today, take any SF vs Komodo game from TCEC. Go over them move by move at 1 hour per move. If you find ANY move where a longer search gives a better answer, you just proved we don't have perfect play today.

EroSennin
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:26 am

### Re: which would take more moves to win

bob wrote:
EroSennin wrote:
bob wrote: That could be done, but what does it prove? Computers still don't play anywhere near perfectly, even with queens removed.
I will patiently wait for your proof too
Where do I need a proof to say "I don't know?" Try to read a bit before making such comments. I have continually stated "we don't know whether a knight wins or not, either with perfect play or perfect vs a GM."

My proof is easy: There is NO data supporting ANYTHING about expected results with perfect play, other than in the simple endgames we can get perfect play in today (7 total pieces and fewer).

If you want proof of no perfect play today, take any SF vs Komodo game from TCEC. Go over them move by move at 1 hour per move. If you find ANY move where a longer search gives a better answer, you just proved we don't have perfect play today.
That is just old philosophical rambling. Yes we can't prove anything to be real.

bob
Posts: 20916
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

### Re: which would take more moves to win

EroSennin wrote:
bob wrote:
EroSennin wrote:
bob wrote: That could be done, but what does it prove? Computers still don't play anywhere near perfectly, even with queens removed.
I will patiently wait for your proof too
Where do I need a proof to say "I don't know?" Try to read a bit before making such comments. I have continually stated "we don't know whether a knight wins or not, either with perfect play or perfect vs a GM."

My proof is easy: There is NO data supporting ANYTHING about expected results with perfect play, other than in the simple endgames we can get perfect play in today (7 total pieces and fewer).

If you want proof of no perfect play today, take any SF vs Komodo game from TCEC. Go over them move by move at 1 hour per move. If you find ANY move where a longer search gives a better answer, you just proved we don't have perfect play today.
That is just old philosophical rambling. Yes we can't prove anything to be real.

we can prove many things, just not what a knight-odds game with perfect play resolves to.

EroSennin
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:26 am

### Re: which would take more moves to win

bob wrote:
EroSennin wrote:
bob wrote:
EroSennin wrote:
bob wrote: That could be done, but what does it prove? Computers still don't play anywhere near perfectly, even with queens removed.
I will patiently wait for your proof too
Where do I need a proof to say "I don't know?" Try to read a bit before making such comments. I have continually stated "we don't know whether a knight wins or not, either with perfect play or perfect vs a GM."

My proof is easy: There is NO data supporting ANYTHING about expected results with perfect play, other than in the simple endgames we can get perfect play in today (7 total pieces and fewer).

If you want proof of no perfect play today, take any SF vs Komodo game from TCEC. Go over them move by move at 1 hour per move. If you find ANY move where a longer search gives a better answer, you just proved we don't have perfect play today.
That is just old philosophical rambling. Yes we can't prove anything to be real.

we can prove many things, just not what a knight-odds game with perfect play resolves to.
You really want to list all the million things we can't prove? Also maybe it is all just a dream so obviously there is no proof of anything.

bob
Posts: 20916
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

### Re: which would take more moves to win

EroSennin wrote:
bob wrote:
EroSennin wrote:
bob wrote:
EroSennin wrote:
bob wrote: That could be done, but what does it prove? Computers still don't play anywhere near perfectly, even with queens removed.
I will patiently wait for your proof too
Where do I need a proof to say "I don't know?" Try to read a bit before making such comments. I have continually stated "we don't know whether a knight wins or not, either with perfect play or perfect vs a GM."

My proof is easy: There is NO data supporting ANYTHING about expected results with perfect play, other than in the simple endgames we can get perfect play in today (7 total pieces and fewer).

If you want proof of no perfect play today, take any SF vs Komodo game from TCEC. Go over them move by move at 1 hour per move. If you find ANY move where a longer search gives a better answer, you just proved we don't have perfect play today.
That is just old philosophical rambling. Yes we can't prove anything to be real.

we can prove many things, just not what a knight-odds game with perfect play resolves to.
You really want to list all the million things we can't prove? Also maybe it is all just a dream so obviously there is no proof of anything.
Want to list the BILLIONS of things we can prove. I can prove fine #70 is a forced mate, for example. But if you can't prove something, you can't state that something as a fact either. Which is what has been done here multiple times. A knight handicap is better than no handicap, how much better is, and probably always will be unknown.

EroSennin
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:26 am

### Re: which would take more moves to win

Well obviously this thread is quite boring. Close it up.

bob
Posts: 20916
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:30 pm
Location: Birmingham, AL

### Re: which would take more moves to win

EroSennin wrote:Well obviously this thread is quite boring. Close it up.
It gets automatically closed when people stop reading and responding...

Posts: 10342
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:21 pm