Luke skywalker has done it again.

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

Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw

Albert Silver
Posts: 3019
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:57 pm
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Re: Luke skywalker has done it again.

Post by Albert Silver »

Mark Mason wrote:Well anyway....just in case anyone hasn't yet spotted it today.Chessbase have officially admitted it was all a joke which we all knew anyway:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8051

:roll:
Well, I pretty much said as much in page one of this thread, without spelling it out.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
gerold
Posts: 10121
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:57 am
Location: van buren,missouri

Re: Luke skywalker has done it again.

Post by gerold »

Albert Silver wrote:
Mark Mason wrote:Well anyway....just in case anyone hasn't yet spotted it today.Chessbase have officially admitted it was all a joke which we all knew anyway:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8051

:roll:
Well, I pretty much said as much in page one of this thread, without spelling it out.
I though it was real when first posted. But wondered how strange and stupid could one man and chessbase be. :_) . Well considering the source hum.............................
Daniel Shawul
Posts: 4185
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:34 am
Location: Ethiopia

Re: Luke skywalker has done it again.

Post by Daniel Shawul »

The funniest way one guy figured it out
"That can't be a geek's wife so it is the april fools joke" :)

For me it was the consecuative "chess + billiards" and the "futuristic let's check" articles that alerted me. No idea about pogo pogo though. Well played chessbase!
Rein Halbersma
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 11:13 am

Re: Luke skywalker has done it again.

Post by Rein Halbersma »

Rein Halbersma wrote: Apart from the lame April fools date obfuscation in the piece, the actual numbers already made the story incredible without reading further!

First, the solution space of checkers was 10^22 (the search space was 10^40), which was reduced to 10^14 by a bidirectional search. The back-end search built 10^14 database positions, and the front-end search built 10^14 opening positions. Schaeffer (http://ilk.uvt.nl/icga/journal/pdf/toc30-4.pdf) estimates it would take 200 core years to re-create this solution. Second, Schaeffer also estimates that the solution space for chess is about the square of that of checkers.

How does Vas's claim stack up against this? Hm, about 10 times the computing power but about the square of the search space (10^80 vs 10^40). Being liberal, let's suppose the actual solution space is the square root of that (10^40). However, the efficient bidirectional search (giving almost another square root reduction), was dependent on 10-piece databases which were already reachable from shallow root searches. Without the equivalent chess databases, the 10^40 solution space will not be reduced by another square root. And covering 26 orders of magnitude with 10 times more computing power... :roll:

BTW, the way checkers was solved by Schaeffer et al. was by iterating over the threshold value. So a real proof would take the 5.12 as the first step in such an iteration, and stepwise increase it all the way to a mate score.
So the joke is exposed by the man himself using a similar argument as above:

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8051
"we're still probably a good 25 or so orders of magnitude away from being able to solve something like the King's Gambit."
Daniel Shawul
Posts: 4185
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:34 am
Location: Ethiopia

Re: Luke skywalker has done it again.

Post by Daniel Shawul »

Well I am not sure that is a good explanation. It said they used Rybka which has a lower branching factor than alpha-beta would give you. That will not give you a proof but you can arrive at probablistic conclusions(Which they claimed to have done 99.99999% accuracy by taking samples of positions of 5.12 advantage). Assuming BF of 34 for min-max alpha-beta = 6 to 7 , and rybka BF < 2 so the numbers quoted are not applicable.
Also they started from king's gambit with a pawn down so to reach a 5.12 you would need to capture a bishop/knight and some positional score. So combine that with the Watson cluster and you may find yourself believing it.
Albert Silver
Posts: 3019
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:57 pm
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Re: Luke skywalker has done it again.

Post by Albert Silver »

Daniel Shawul wrote:The funniest way one guy figured it out
"That can't be a geek's wife so it is the april fools joke" :)

For me it was the consecutive "chess + billiards" and the "futuristic let's check" articles that alerted me. No idea about pogo pogo though. Well played chessbase!
If it's any consolation to those who were unsure, I had several GMs asking me to tell them it was a belated joke. One top player, who never doubted it, told me that he had a friend, an assiduous King's Gambit player, who was freaking out despite his reassurances there was no way this could be serious.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."
Daniel Shawul
Posts: 4185
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:34 am
Location: Ethiopia

Re: Luke skywalker has done it again.

Post by Daniel Shawul »

Albert Silver wrote:
Daniel Shawul wrote:The funniest way one guy figured it out
"That can't be a geek's wife so it is the april fools joke" :)

For me it was the consecutive "chess + billiards" and the "futuristic let's check" articles that alerted me. No idea about pogo pogo though. Well played chessbase!
If it's any consolation to those who were unsure, I had several GMs asking me to tell them it was a belated joke. One top player, who never doubted it, told me that he had a friend, an assiduous King's Gambit player, who was freaking out despite his reassurances there was no way this could be serious.
I do not believe anyone who has not seen the April 1st references and the pogo pogo reference (clear give aways) will have figured it out by techinical means with in the first hour before those started circulating. Those were the spoilers imo.
Daniel Shawul
Posts: 4185
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:34 am
Location: Ethiopia

More

Post by Daniel Shawul »

Infact it is very much possible with the pruning rybka even without considering the 5.12 termination after the gambit.

checkers bf: 10
alpha-beta: sqrt(10) = 3.16
=> Exact proof

chess bf: 35
alpha-beta: sqrt(35) = 5.9
Rybka prunings can definately bring that down to 3.16 i.e level of checkers
=> probablistic proof

If I assume 80 half moves (40 full moves) for game end. Ignoring the second assumption of 5.12 then I have the following.

minmax = 35^80 ~ 10^120 (more than number of atoms in universe)
alpha-beta = 5.9^80 ~ 10^60

And rybka say with 1.8 bf
rybka = 1.7 ^ 80 ~ 10^18
So it is definately possible to apply the methodology as described there.
They also said 10^18 is possible in their explanation.
The only question is if you can prove that the results are accurate with 99.99999% probablility.
Terry McCracken
Posts: 16465
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:16 am
Location: Canada

Re: Luke skywalker has done it again.

Post by Terry McCracken »

Daniel Shawul wrote:
Albert Silver wrote:
Daniel Shawul wrote:The funniest way one guy figured it out
"That can't be a geek's wife so it is the april fools joke" :)

For me it was the consecutive "chess + billiards" and the "futuristic let's check" articles that alerted me. No idea about pogo pogo though. Well played chessbase!
If it's any consolation to those who were unsure, I had several GMs asking me to tell them it was a belated joke. One top player, who never doubted it, told me that he had a friend, an assiduous King's Gambit player, who was freaking out despite his reassurances there was no way this could be serious.
I do not believe anyone who has not seen the April 1st references and the pogo pogo reference (clear give aways) will have figured it out by techinical means with in the first hour before those started circulating. Those were the spoilers imo.
Not true. If you know it's not possible then you know it's not possible with today's hardware and software.

Many know what IBM is doing so that would be an obvious clue if you didn't understand the problem.

Another would be this came out of the blue so it makes little sense to accept any of it at face value.

The date April 1, is above the diagram...Need I say more?

All this is understood in a moment, no need to research anything, a waste of time.

You admit you fell for it at the bottom of page 6.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... =&start=50

I told you on page 1 & page 2 it was a hoax.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... w=&start=0

and here..

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... =&start=10

I posted a dozen min. after you and again when I got back a couple of hours later, after I finished some work in the yard. While you hopped from forum to forum only to make the false claim I fell for it and Dan Honeycutt was out of touch.

Well the truth is painfully obvious to people who can actually read English and read it well!
Terry McCracken
Terry McCracken
Posts: 16465
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:16 am
Location: Canada

Re: More

Post by Terry McCracken »

Daniel Shawul wrote:Infact it is very much possible with the pruning rybka even without considering the 5.12 termination after the gambit.

checkers bf: 10
alpha-beta: sqrt(10) = 3.16
=> Exact proof

chess bf: 35
alpha-beta: sqrt(35) = 5.9
Rybka prunings can definately bring that down to 3.16 i.e level of checkers
=> probablistic proof

If I assume 80 half moves (40 full moves) for game end. Ignoring the second assumption of 5.12 then I have the following.

minmax = 35^80 ~ 10^120 (more than number of atoms in universe)
alpha-beta = 5.9^80 ~ 10^60

And rybka say with 1.8 bf
rybka = 1.7 ^ 80 ~ 10^18
So it is definately possible to apply the methodology as described there.
They also said 10^18 is possible in their explanation.
The only question is if you can prove that the results are accurate with 99.99999% probablility.
Are you serious???

Come on. No it is not very much possible as you state. :roll:

It is and I repeat, impossible!
Terry McCracken