TalkChess.com

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....

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

EroSennin wrote:Well obviously this thread is quite boring. Close it up.

It gets automatically closed when people stop reading and responding...

bob wrote: 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.

One of these "BILLIONS of things we can prove" is the following proof:

I have an EPD file of 5-men TB wins.
Using this file as openings with Komodo, I have the following:
400 Games in 40/1 minute
Komodo No TB self-games: average length of the won game -- 26.0 moves
Komodo 5-men Syzygy self-games: average length of the won game -- 23.6 moves

Therefore the perfect play SHORTENS the length of the game (the path to win) in theoretically won positions, contrary to what you are stating here all the way from the first post in this thread.