Perfect play has been discussed more and more as engines have gotten stronger. Stockfish 15 has been nearly unbeatable since release, barely ever losing, even to the other strongest engines. Is a genuinely unbeatable engine on the horizon? Is Stockfish 15 close?
Ask Stockfish 16. ;)
It's not only the engine. It's also the device. Run Stockfish 14 on a strong computer and it will crush Stockfish 15 on your PC. Stockfish hasn't an ELO. Only the combination Stockfish + Computer has an ELO. Computers are getting faster and faster. So the combination Stockfish + Computer is getting stronger and stronger. Every year. So there isn't an unbeatable engine on the horizon.
#1
Not now, but one day we will definitely have strongest version of chess engine that's unbeatable and perfect play will come in existence at that moment. Also, since chess is most likely a draw (to be proved on future) strongest version can't lose even with Black pieces.
Not now, but one day we will definitely have strongest version of chess engine that's unbeatable and perfect play will come in existence at that moment. Also, since chess is most likely a draw (to be proved on future) strongest version can't lose even with Black pieces.
Being human, 'we know what we know,' while the 'lesser animals' just 'know' ... a spider is able to build a web for instance, but we seriously doubt the spider 'knows' he's building a web ... the spider is unaware he 'knows' how to build a web ... at least in human terms of 'knowing' (a 'self' perceiving what it knows) ... you might say the spider is blindly 'executing code' ...
So, 'we know what we know,' but we don't know what we don't know, and even further, if we can trust people like Kurt Godel, we never will 'master all knowledge' ... the best we can ever hope for is to master all 'human knowledge' ...
The point being, obviously (?), chess is beyond human knowledge, we will never discover 'the perfect chess game,' we'll only ever be able to call a game 'perfect' in human terms ...
Granted, we've already got 99% (more or less, I guess) of all possible theory figured out, but there's always the 'corner cases' ...
So, what I am really saying is that chess is theoretically so rich that I expect the 1% of corner cases (or whatever the real % is) to never be exhausted by human inquiry ...
So, 'we know what we know,' but we don't know what we don't know, and even further, if we can trust people like Kurt Godel, we never will 'master all knowledge' ... the best we can ever hope for is to master all 'human knowledge' ...
The point being, obviously (?), chess is beyond human knowledge, we will never discover 'the perfect chess game,' we'll only ever be able to call a game 'perfect' in human terms ...
Granted, we've already got 99% (more or less, I guess) of all possible theory figured out, but there's always the 'corner cases' ...
So, what I am really saying is that chess is theoretically so rich that I expect the 1% of corner cases (or whatever the real % is) to never be exhausted by human inquiry ...
Maybe we are spiders in chess compared to these computers and programs, most of us start pushing pieces rather mechanically, it takes a long time to acquire a slight glimpse of the vastness of the game. Reminds of what Magnus once said I believe after playing against a computer, "I suck at chess, just that I do less than the others" (or smth like that).
@boilingFrog where are you getting this 99% figure from? As in we already have 99% figured out? That seems like something pulled out of thin air.
@Epop44 Yes ... I have no idea ... I am unconsciously trying to give we poor humans the benefit of the doubt ?
Considering the scale, the sheer magnitude of 'theoretical chess space', far beyond our limited notion of 'astronomical', the value may well be far below 99% ...
Somehow, I feel we'll never even know that much ...
Considering the scale, the sheer magnitude of 'theoretical chess space', far beyond our limited notion of 'astronomical', the value may well be far below 99% ...
Somehow, I feel we'll never even know that much ...
@Meriten said in #3:
> It's not only the engine. It's also the device. Run Stockfish 14 on a strong computer and it will crush Stockfish 15 on your PC. Stockfish hasn't an ELO. Only the combination Stockfish + Computer has an ELO. Computers are getting faster and faster. So the combination Stockfish + Computer is getting stronger and stronger. Every year. So there isn't an unbeatable engine on the horizon.
This makes no sense, Stockfish 15 at worst case draws against any forms of stockfish 14.
> It's not only the engine. It's also the device. Run Stockfish 14 on a strong computer and it will crush Stockfish 15 on your PC. Stockfish hasn't an ELO. Only the combination Stockfish + Computer has an ELO. Computers are getting faster and faster. So the combination Stockfish + Computer is getting stronger and stronger. Every year. So there isn't an unbeatable engine on the horizon.
This makes no sense, Stockfish 15 at worst case draws against any forms of stockfish 14.
It's funny there is so much discussion of Stockfish and no Mention of the others, Alpha Zero, Leila, Komodo... Didn't Stockfish get Annihaled against Alpha Zero?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.