[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: computer-go: Go Devil
Hi Vincent,
At 02:38 PM 9/23/00 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Part 2 of Go-Devil.
>
>In my last post, I talked about rating curves in Chess and tried to
>make a case that the very best human players actually don't play very
>well compared to what would be possible by omniscient entities.
That thought is completely nuts, and totally wrong.
Give a grandmaster a pawn up directly and he'll destroy you completely.
Now you can argue that he mates you in 50 moves instead of 34,
but you'll lose chanceless.
When I say, "don't play very well", I'm speaking in a theoretical
sense. I'm not talking about how he would do against YOU or ME. I'm
talking about he would do against GOD! And I don't know why you talk
about a pawn advantage, that is like several stones in GO so I don't
get your point.
Fact is that top gm's make on average 1 move a game which is obviously
not the best. Apart from that, some make under big time contraints
now and then an error (a big one) somewhere near time trouble.
One obvious error per game is hugely significant. Chess is not about
good moves, it's completely decided by errors! Also, for every
"obvious" errors how many not so obvious ones are there?
Now chess is like this that you play with very little pieces compared
to go, so a big error is directly turning the game in favor of your opponent.
Agreed, chess gets out of control quckly, and Go can happen more
gradually with many tiny errors.
The world top gm's of 2700 and above however are playing a type of game
which is far better. Usually only a single 'dubious' move at most a game,
which they find dubious, but i don't mind playing plenty of those moves
in a single game.
Here is my point: How do you know how many dubious moves they make on
the average? Did you figure it out yourself or did they tell you? My
point is that you can't believe them, even if they are sincere because
they just don't know! You must ask Chess-God to get a correct answer.
You don't ask a warthog if he is beautiful, he probably is sure that
he is!
Maybe another way of putting it is this, if you ask someone how many
dubious moves per game they make, they can only tell you about the
ones they are aware of.
Now of course the question is directly: "how can some lose to programs?"
I wonder about that too.
That's very easy. The programs are good enough to win their fair
share of games now.
But a lot of people don't seem to understand this. What happens is
that computers often play moves so silly that people cannot believe
they are as strong as they are. Also, humans completely ignore errors
they make themselves and do not consider them part of the strength
comparison. You get a won game, and then make a silly blunder and
lose. In your mind, you are far superior to that computer (even
though it never blunders) and the game really was "a fluke", shouldn't
have happened. What is missed, is that chess is only about errors,
and that's a big part of why computers do pretty well.
But they combine this with good calculating ability too. It's not a
surprise that they can win despite the fact that they are chess stupid
in a lot of situations.
There are different things. First of all we must not forget that
not all games of them are that well. Only games where they play for
something important are real good usually. Playing each day a game
is obviously not very good for the level of the games.
I think you are right, humans play much better when highly motivated,
like Kasparov was when he lost to Deep Blue.
Not seldom we see in the so many-th round many errors occurring, usually
from both sides.
Still the real question is: "why do they suck (with a few exceptions)
against computers?". Question is: they didn't show the last of their
tongue.
See the games Kasparov-Karpov. In those games you will not see many
errors. In fact the matches Kasparov-Karpov are real high quality games,
the best ever shown. At most you can point down that nowadays
different opening lines get played, but the games itself real high
quality. On average less as 1 real bad move a game. I remember only 1 game
where a blunder (deciding the game directly) has been made by Karpov
in a position where he was already under immense pressure the whole game.
Again, I think you are quoting numbers that are unfounded. You can
count the number of moves you believe are errors but you cannot count
the number of moves that you don't know are errors.
Yet the games kasparov-deep blue had about 6 bad moves a game at least,
from kasparov side even complete blunders in game 2 (resigning in
a drawn position) and game 6 several blunders. Also kasparov didn't play
his usual style. He kind of gave Deep Blue several games 9 stones up
so to speak, and very obviously he didn't try to win the games
in the opening, which would have been a real peanut for Kasparov.
I personally believe Kasparov is still a significantly better player
than Deep Blue, but a 6 game match was too short to prove it and
therefore I feel he was simply a victim of probability and statistics
and perhaps his own cockiness.
But still, you are describing a very flawed player, by your own admit
he made many errors. You are ascribing this to "something about
computers that make humans play bad." I think this is nonsense, they
are what they are. If they consistantly win, they are better,
otherwise they are worse.
What computers DO do well is expose the errors humans make. Humans
are forced to play very precisely and accurately to beat them. Again,
this is evidence that humans need to clean up their play in order to
claim God-like play.
Yet the years before that, despite all those bad moves, this was enough
to beat the programs. I think Kasparov's only mistake was to play the
18 stone up game against deep blue in game 6 in the last match we know,
otherwise we would consider nowadays that supercomputer programs suck
incredible, but that pc programs are way better on a slow machine.
Also very surprising were the games human-computer at Paderborn
after the world champs 1999. We clearly see there that grandmasters
just do *something* except play what they normally play.
"we don't get paid to win there".
On the other hand even very bad GMs which played over the internet against
Rebel managed sometimes from already bad positions for the GMs to get
easily a draw, or even win the game. So they were playing on the computer,
which is already worse as playing in a tournament hall at your own real
3d board (less distraction etcetera and especially an extra dimension).
Add to this that last years we see a new generation of grandmasters who
play tactical far better as grandmasters from some tens of years ago.
Also their insight in the game is in my opinion way better.
I don't see that as amazing. It WOULD be amazing if we were pretty
close to perfect, but this just proves, if it's true, that there is
still a lot of room to get better and that's all I'm saying.
We even see players like Kramnik (who is gonna play Kasparov for
the world title in octobre) find new ideas in very old systems,
which are at least 100 years old.
Which means there are still lot's of good undiscovered ideas, ideas
that our mythical Chess-God is aware of right now.
The whole assumption that these players make a lot of mistakes is
completely wrong.
I can't believe that you just said that, just about your whole email
is about couting up all the errors grandmasters make.
... If you take into account what level they play at,
in important games for them, then you'll also clearly see that the
level is much higher as most think.
As far as the correspondence issue is concerned. You are the first
master I have talked to that believed the top players played over the
board chess BETTER than the best correspondence players. Now if you
argued that Kasparov might be the best correspondence player in the
world, I might at least see your point.
But would you at least agree that Kasparov playing 1 day per move is
MUCH better than Kasparov playing 3 minutes per move? In a nutshell,
that's all I really need to make my point. And my point is that it's
possible to play MUCH better than the top players do over the board.
Your whole section about correspondence players seems to indicate a
lot of contempt for them.
>I have some further thoughts on this taking it from a different angle.
>In the previous post I made reference to Kasparov's play and held this
>up as an example of the best human play. However there is kind of
>chess that is generally acknowledged to be of a much higher quality
>than this, and it's called correspondence chess. I have talked to
The average correspondence player loses against Kasparov blindfolded.
The average correspondence player plays a good opening, but this opening
is litterary out of the books he has, which are made by grandmasters
way under Kasparov's level.
Kasparov completely finishes an opponent if Kasparov has openingsadvantage,
he has shown in strong tournaments that he usually doesn't even need
an openingsadvantage. Basic point is that they will win a won position,
in the style they can chose, where correspondence players are simply
to dependant upon their resources to play.
I played myself correspondence chess, and the level is real pathetic
from technical viewpoint,
and usually dominated by good openings and bad technique to finish the
game. Actually several games in so called 'mastergroup' there i
could as 17 to 19 year old boy from a lost position convert
into won positions!
It appeared i was playing basically chessprograms, which still dominate
the lower levels of correspondence chess. In fact many chessprograms
including my own have many national correspondence titles already
(of course not the opening played by the programs). Rebel especially
has countless titles all over the world.
In general people who hardly can play chess over the board join
such competitions, and very few of them, as there is hardly money to win.
No money no good players!
The only high level games in correspondence chess are very few world
league games and some country versus country games on the highest boards.
Those high level games you can however count on a few hands, and are usually
dominated by a few GMs and IMs or masterclass players who play for fun
correspondence chess, so basically dominated by players who over the board
are playing quite well too.
>several master on this subject as well as one former world champion in
>correspondence chess and the consensus is that the level of play of
>top players FAR exceeds that of over the board play. In
The average top GM game is of a much higher level as the average
correspondence game, yet there are of course a few advantages to the
correspondence players: they hardly blunder for example. They use the
latest openings books, but despite that they are outgunned in opening
against any 2600+ GM who invents his own new theory instead of
litterary selecting lines from just published books, therefore with
induction the above hypothesis is wrong.
>correspondence play, each player has many hours or even days to
>respond to a single move, and uses this time to do serious analysis.
>As a thought experiment, if you could give a top correspondence player
>the ability to make the same high quality moves but in normal
>tournament time controls, you would have a player far superior to
>Kasparov in over the board play. I have never heard a good player
>deny this conjecture and I have talked to several about it.
I doubt this. Kasparov prepares a lot at home too. It's different
of course if your correspondence player is called Kramnik.
Basically this theoretical possibility is supporting your opinion,
but if you take the average correspondence player who has a NATIONAL
TITLE : "national champion correspondence chess", then Kasparov
will destroy him completely IF HE WANTS TO.
Question is: does he need to destroy him by showing his latest opening
lines prepared, or will Kasparov use such lines in the upcoming match
Kramnik-Kasparov?
The fact that prepared opening suprises are so common by these strong
players (and I have even done my own original analysis to beat
opponents) is a LOT of evidence that there is a lot of holes in
current opening theory. If this is true, then Chess-God would have a
field day against any living Grandmaster!!!
>When games of the top players are analyzed later, it is common to find
>flaws in the play. It is so common in fact that it is clear we are
>playing far from perfectly. There is a still a very large gap between
>the current level of play of top humans and perfect play.
What is your definition of perfect play?
- a) not losing drawn positions,
winning a won position, and getting the best out of lost positions,
so sometimes converting them to a win?
- b) mating an opponent using optimal play so if it's a mate in
56 theoretical then also finding this mate in 56 behind the board?
If your definition of perfect play is b, then you're right.
If it's a or something similar, then you're dead wrong.
Chess-God uses strategy A, which is my general definition. "Getting
the best out of lost positions" is a Chess-Devil tactic, but an
important part of real play.
The simplest way to design a googleplex mhz computer to play chess
would be to use this strategy which I'll call Chess-Devil-Jr (because
Chess-Devil looks into your brain and knows which specific things
might confuse you):
1) Win games in the least number of moves.
2) Delay stalemates and draws by repetition to longest possible length.
3) In lost games (presumably these never happen) delay checkmate as long
as possible.
I advice you to analyze some games from Kramnik with some strong
players, using published analyzes and everything you have.
A good example is the game he played against Polgar in a demonstration
game at television recently. Try to analyze his moves in this 1 hour
a game level instead of having discussions like this!
They are always started by people who can't play chess at all!
I think there have been games played absolutely perfectly by one side.
Possibly, if the opening position really is a draw, there have been
perfect games played by both sides! But we may not really be able to
prove that one side or the other played perfectly. Since we don't even
know whether the opening position is drawn, it is pretty much impossible
to ascertain whether ANYONE has EVER played a perfect game! That seems
astounding but take this game:
1. f3 e5
2. g4 Qh4 MATE
Question: Did black play a perfect game?
If we use your B definition (or my Chess-Devil-Jr) player to judge, I think
the answer could be NO!! Look at all the information that is missing:
1. Was f3 ok? Mabye f3 turns a won game into a draw, or a draw into
a loss? Do you know the answer Vincent?
2. Was e5 the best move for black? By our standards it seems strong, but
maybe d4 is better? Maybe another move altogether is objectively better?
What if we use Chess-God strategy? We just use care not to change the
theorectical outcome of the game. Do you actually claim to know
whether e4 is better than d4 or some other move entirely in the
opening position? Both moves are quite committal. How about f3 in
this position? It's not commonly played, but is it really bad or just
unfashionable? If Chess is won for white, is it still won after f3?
If it's a draw, is it still a draw after f3?
Chess-God and Chess-Devil knows the answer to all these questions.
But no human does. I think that's enough of an advantage to make up
for more than a few rating points!
Don
>Because of our limited perception, it is difficult for us to see much
>farther than from our own vantage point. To us, brilliant and perfect
>play is simply whatever the best of us can achieve. We are impressed
>with our own accomplishments. But to a God, what we consider
>brilliant and perfect might very well be simple minded and naive.
>
>I would like to also point out that player perfect moves most of the
>time does not mean you play good Chess (or Go) in general. The
>difference between a great player and an excellent player might be
>that the excellent player plays perfetly 90% of the moves and the
>Great player gets it right 93% of the time. Over a long series of
>games the great player will amass a huge lead, especially considering
>that the bad moves of the weaker player will get punished more often.
>
>In a real sense, there is no such thing as a good or excellent move in
>2 player games of perfect information like Chess and Go. There are
>only bad moves. A good move is a human label applied to a move which
>is difficult to find or is "pretty", a Go Devil kind of move! A bad
>move is a move that doesn't maintain the game theoretic outcome.
>There is a maxim in chess that says the winner is the next to the last
>person to make a mistake!
>
>Finally, I don't know how to apply this to Go. I feel that we are at
>least a few hundred elo rating points from perfect chess, even as many
>as 1000 (which means a hypothtical player exists who would rarely ever
>lose to Kasparov, and yet there still exists a player who would rarely
>lose to this player!)
>
>Christoph gave the rough rule of thumb that 1 stone equals 100 ELO
>rating points. If this is approximately right, then the idea of the
>best players being close to perfect (within 1 or 2 stones) seems
>fairly ludicrous. 200 rating points (or two stones?) means that among
>equal players, the handicapped player would still win about 15% of the
>time although losing about 85% of the games.
>
>I think Go is MUCH more profound and difficult to master than Chess,
>and this by a really wide margin. I have heard similar numbers quoted
>for chess, where it's been hypothesized that we are only 200 or 300
>points away from perfection. I even admit that it's hard to imagine a
>player who could achieve a score of over 80% against the great and
>wonderful Kasparov, but I think that kind of thinking is what ties us
>in knots, we really shouldn't make our guesses by comparing to players
>we worship because they are too close to God in our minds!
>
>
>Just for reference here is a simple table of expectancies that the ELO
>rating system predicts. For instance the last entry indicates that if
>you are 400 points higher rated, you will win 97% of the games against
>your weaker opponent. Most of the experiments I mentioned earlier in
>computer chess, for those not familiar, were based on playing hundreds
>of games against programs of various depths, and calculating ELO
>ratings based on winning percentages. In the experiments, it was
>shown that by searching 1 ply deeper you could obtain a stronger
>program, one that could expect to win about 80% or more of the time.
>
>
> ELO diff wins %
> -------- ------
> 0 0.50
> 20 0.53
> 40 0.58
> 60 0.62
> 80 0.66
> 100 0.69
> 120 0.73
> 140 0.76
> 160 0.79
> 180 0.82
> 200 0.84
> 300 0.93
> 400 0.97
>
>