Originally posted by Dr StrangelovePutting your queen into an en-prise position would normally never be considered in a real game, but the sacrifice value of the move can win some games. Engines will still (briefly) check whether a3 is a good move, followed by whether a4 is a good move, etc.
Billions and billions of the possible infinite number of chess moves are complete non moves, eg,a1-a2-a3-a4-a5-a6 in succession would never be considered in a real game.
Besides all of that, why wouldn't a1-a2-a3-a4-a5-a6 occur in a real game (Apart from the fact that they aren't legal moves, and assuming that you mean a3-a4-a5-a6-a7)?
D
1 edit
Originally posted by stockenGoing by that ridiculous statement, grandmasters who were winning world championships before the computer age [ie, Fischer for one] had no understanding of the game of chess.
What's the difference really? I could have built a database with a huge amount of different moves and just follow it far enough into the game to be able to beat most people in chess.
Answered by Ragnorak
Shows a complete lack of understanding of the game of chess.
D
You don't need to know anything about computer programs or computer databases to understand the game of chess.
Hi,
For a serious answer: a database will help you some, and more the more you know about chess, but by itself it can mislead as easily as help. For example, you might find a line that has white winning 80% at the GM level, with 100 sample games. Sure winner for you, right? Not if Kramnik found a bust that no-one's met and your opponent happens to read the chess magazines etc. and knows it.
It's true that just mindlessly following GM games out a ways can help you beat lower ranked players (under 1500 say) and that a database is a much more efficient way to do that than looking through stacks of books and magazines. But everything gets a lot more complicated at higher levels.
Originally posted by RagnorakI have heard (read) there are more possible moves in a 40 move game of chess than there are atoms in the universe. Not sure how true that is, but I sure know there is no way to do what stockens thinks he could do on any computer regardless of size of hardrive.
Can you actually do the maths for that? I think you're way off with your few hundred gigs.
And how would you build this database?
And why only 5-6 possible moves for each position?
My comment about the complete lack of understanding was due to the fact that chess is pretty close to infinite. There are more possible games of chess than there are grains of sand on every beach in the world.
I stand by my comment.
D
P-
3 edits
Originally posted by RagnorakObviously, if I were to consider every possible line, from every possible position, I would require many gigaquads of storage (and I'm pretty sure that any computer today would take like forever in actually parsing the data - looking back and forth and deciding on the best line would be tiresome for me if each move takes many seconds to extract from storage).
Can you actually do the maths for that? I think you're way off with your few hundred gigs.
And how would you build this database?
And why only 5-6 possible moves for each position?
My comment about the complete lack of understanding was due to the fact that chess is pretty close to infinite. There are more possible games of chess than there are grains of sand on every beach in the world.
I stand by my comment.
D
I'm talking about the five most useful moves (which could include sacrifices) from each move made. Thus, it would be a pretty large database, but not nearly as big as you may think. And it would be based not necessarily on my own playing (because I may not be a good enough player) but on the countermoves I receive from opponents. Ah, that was a good line. Let's add that.
1) It would make me appear to be a much, much better player than I actually am (since I'll be playing lines I don't even fully understand, but have seen others play), and
2) I would never miss something due to lapse in concentration (thus, I'll be able to have 1 or 100 games going at once without making the kind of mistakes I would have without the database to remind me of the "best" possible moves).
Now, a database like that wouldn't necessarily take me to a GM level. In fact, I'm certain it wouldn't. But it would allow me to play on a definitely higher level than I'm actually capable of over the board. Is that not cheating, in a sense?
Like I said, I have no problem with database users, since obviously when playing over the web there's no knowing what the other player is doing, and these games are in no way personal, I just don't see a big difference between using a database and an engine. Except for the obvious: the engine is capable of choosing the "best" line for you, when with a database you're responsible for doing that yourself.
---
Also, if you think about it, even though no such game has yet been played (to my knowledge) there must be the perfect game. Right? There must be a game where white makes every move such that black just don't get to checkmate. No? Isn't it possible that over time, using a database, you would discover that game? No, of course not. Not in your lifetime maybe, but eventually. Now, me, personally, think that a game of chess is best played between two humans on approximately the same level, using no aid. A game where I actually understand why I'm doing what I'm doing. A database could tell me that this or that line is good, but it makes absolutely no sense to me because I think I can spot several weakspots. Of course, it could turn out to be a rather good series of moves, but I couldn't see that. Would I feel good about using it without actually knowing what I'm doing? No. That would take the fun out of the game immediately.
But that's me.
Edit: In short, I want to think through each move myself. When I am tired I make mistakes, and otherwise I play the best I can. It's not nearly a GM level, but it's fun. If my opponent uses an engine or database and I learn about it, I may get a little dissapointed, but what I don't know about won't hurt me.
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveRidiculous statement? If stocken plans on building a database of every possible move (or top 5/6, however he'd achieve that) up to move 30, he has no understanding of the game of chess. Either that, OR, he has some elixir that'll allow him to live until he's about 7,000. Even the fastest of computers available today working on it would need hundreds of years of computation time.
Going by that ridiculous statement, grandmasters who were winning world championships before the computer age [ie, Fischer for one] had no understanding of the game of chess.
You don't need to know anything about computer programs or computer databases to understand the game of chess.
What has my statement got to do with Fischer, et al? How come you're still so ignorant on the subject months after the initial debate? Surely, if you wish to be vociferous on the subject, you should follow my advice from the last time. Do some research on the subject and get a clue.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakYou're thinking in such small terms. You're actually right that if I wanted the 5 best moves from every single previous position 30 moves into the game, it would take a long time to compile, but even more so, it would require many gigabytes of storage capacity (I estimate around 2-300 Gigabyte using good compression algorithms - assuming I split the base up in several different files for read efficiency).
If stocken plans on building a database of every possible move (or top 5/6, however he'd achieve that) up to move 30, he has no understanding of the game of chess. Either that, OR, he has some elixir that'll allow him to live until he's about 7,000. Even the fastest of computers available today working on it would need hundreds of years of computation time.
What you're totally missing is my point. Say I play 5 games against somewhat better players, and collect the lines that I realise were to my disadvantage in a database like the one I described. Then, play another game using my rather useless little database, realising better lines and possibly replacing previously stored ones. I would then get not much more data, but better openings and middle game strategies collected that I can rely on in new games. I still have to do some thinking of my own while playing, but my collection of lines has already allowed me to play on a level I don't yet fully understand and would be unable to play without my database. I would still lose big time against players who actually understand the lines, but beat players on my own level who don't. Over time I just keep collecting lines like that until I appear to be on a much higher level than I actually am.
Wouldn't you agree, that if I don't study chess and really learn about forks, pins, strategies, openings and so on, I'm cheating? I am, after all, repeating other players games like a mindless mimic? But more importantly, isn't it rather boring doing that?
Even if I do use the database as a tool for ideas, but then figure my moves out on my own, I get valuable help that I wouldn't get otherwise.
---
But yes, if I were to compile such a database on my own it would require lots of time. There are, if I'm not mistaken, already databases with plenty of information (if not as extensive as what I've described) that will allow me to appear to be a better player than I actually am. Assuming I know how to use them. Right?
---
And for the record. I don't plan on building such a database.
Originally posted by NordlysWould it have to be a pawn move I was referring to; a1-a2-a3 etc?
Because you would have to move your pawn backwards.
Maybe I should've said any obviously stupid, never likely moves. N-c3 and back 3 times would all be "possible" moves in the infinite total. Along with countless mega trillions of never used moves, totalling many times more than "real" moves..
Originally posted by RagnorakWhat are you talking about?🙄
Oh sweet Mother of Dog!
The number of legal positions in chess is somewhere between 10^43 and 10^50. That is...
100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible chess positions. Lets divide that by say 4 million (being generous) games in somebody's database.
That is...
1/25,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, ...[text shortened]... te the two, without having a complete lack of understanding of what you are talking about?
D