Perfect play

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

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
elpapa
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sweden
Full name: Patrik Karlsson

Perfect play

Post by elpapa » Wed Sep 28, 2016 2:04 am

Strong engines playing each other draw more often than weak engines playing each other.

Now, if we draw a graph (elo/draw%), find a best fit curve and extrapolate it, we should be able to estimate the strength of engines playing perfect chess (=100% draws).

Does this seem reasonable? Has it been done?

megamau
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 5:20 am
Location: Singapore

Re: Perfect play

Post by megamau » Wed Sep 28, 2016 4:36 am

Yes, I have done some study on CCRL data, by filtering only programs which have an average opposition within 20 elo of their rating.

A better study would be to filter on a game by game basis instead of player by player, but I've had no luck with database programs (CCRL database seems too big for SCID to filter).

Below the results.

Image

User avatar
Laskos
Posts: 9311
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:21 pm
Full name: Kai Laskos

Re: Perfect play

Post by Laskos » Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:27 am

Very reasonable result. Between 3800 and 5000 CCRL ELO points was my result with diminishing returns (ELO value of doubling time or nodes).

Henk
Posts: 5716
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 8:31 am

Re: Perfect play

Post by Henk » Wed Sep 28, 2016 7:14 am

If engines make 50 ELO in a year then we need to wait ten years before we know 3800 ELO is right estimate for perfect play.

Henk
Posts: 5716
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 8:31 am

Re: Perfect play

Post by Henk » Wed Sep 28, 2016 7:31 am

Why would not it be a S-curve ?

Kornrade
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 9:18 am

Re: Perfect play

Post by Kornrade » Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:00 am

I don't think extrapolations are logical when it comes to current chess engines. Consider the concepts that engines do not grasp at all, such as "always/never" (different types of fortresses and dominations) or cyclic improvements (see Blathy studies): engines built around the selective brute force approach cannot grasp these, so will never play perfect. On the other hand, if a new type of engine is built (e.g. neural networks), then the graph related to the "old type of engines" is completely irrelevant

Have fun though :)

JJJ
Posts: 1285
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 11:47 am

Re: Perfect play

Post by JJJ » Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:29 am

In TCEC superfinal, engines gets 90% of Draw easy even on imbalanced opening. They play with a strenght around 3500, so I don't think the graph here is accurate.

User avatar
hgm
Posts: 23468
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Amsterdam
Full name: H G Muller
Contact:

Re: Perfect play

Post by hgm » Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:05 am

100% draws does not necessarily mean perfect play. It only means that the difference of the imperfections is not large enough to push closely matched players out of the draw zone.

User avatar
Laskos
Posts: 9311
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:21 pm
Full name: Kai Laskos

Re: Perfect play

Post by Laskos » Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:16 am

Kornrade wrote:I don't think extrapolations are logical when it comes to current chess engines. Consider the concepts that engines do not grasp at all, such as "always/never" (different types of fortresses and dominations) or cyclic improvements (see Blathy studies): engines built around the selective brute force approach cannot grasp these, so will never play perfect. On the other hand, if a new type of engine is built (e.g. neural networks), then the graph related to the "old type of engines" is completely irrelevant

Have fun though :)
There is nothing special about chess "with different types of domination" and other fancy things. The odds are it will be weakly solved a-la checkers using this type of engines as today in some decades to come. With neural networks using alpha/beta search and reductions, Giraffe chess engine enjoys pretty same draw rates and gains with time/depth.

Norm Pollock
Posts: 1017
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 3:15 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Perfect play

Post by Norm Pollock » Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:50 am

megamau wrote:Yes, I have done some study on CCRL data, by filtering only programs which have an average opposition within 20 elo of their rating.

A better study would be to filter on a game by game basis instead of player by player, but I've had no luck with database programs (CCRL database seems too big for SCID to filter).
Use the tool "eloGap" in 40H-PGN tools (see www below for link). It is a command line tool that does game by game filtering based on Elo difference.

From its readme:

"eloGap" extracts games in which the players' Elo gap (absolute
value of their Elo difference) is less than or equal to a
user-specified maximum Elo gap.

For example:

eloGap alpha.pgn 100

extracts all games in alpha.pgn with an Elo gap from 0 to 100.

The output file is "outF.pgn". Games not extracted to "outF.pgn"
are in "excludeF.pgn".

"eloGap" does not extract games missing an Elo tag.

Syntax: eloGap filename.pgn elo_distance

Example: eloGap alpha.pgn 100

Output: outF.pgn, excludeF.pgn

Post Reply