It's interesting that Random can win any games at all.
The random player can even beat me if it is lucky even if the probability is practically very close to 0(less than 1/10^20).
MateGrabber has no chance because it is going to make a stupid capture very soon because I believe that in order to beat me you need to play a move that is not capture when you can capture.
I am not surprised that the random player can win games.
1.f3 e5 2.g4 Qh4 mate has probability of more than 1/1000,000
and
1.f3 e6 2.g4 Qh4 or 1.g4 e6 2.f3 Qh4 or 1.g4 e6 2.f4 Qh4 or
1.g4 e5 2.f4 Qh4 are also possible with probability bigger than 1/1,000,000.
A random mover is capable of playing a perfect game of chess, even if the odds of that happened are infinitesimal. A program such as Houdini, Komodo or Stockfish may perhaps be LESS likely of playing perfect chess since their moves are more controlled. For example if the best move goes against the heurstics of a strong program it will NEVER play it (unless of course you allow it enough time.)
The question is a perfect game of chess against which opponent.
Even I may have a good chance to play a perfect game of chess if I play against the random mover.
1.f3 e5 2.g4 Qh4 may be a perfect game of chess by black(if e5 is the right move).
I believe that the random mover is more likely to play perfect chess against the perfect player relative to weak players but I believe that top programs of today are too strong and they may draw against the perfect player in a significant part of the games.
It's interesting that Random can win any games at all.
The random player can even beat me if it is lucky even if the probability is practically very close to 0(less than 1/10^20).
MateGrabber has no chance because it is going to make a stupid capture very soon because I believe that in order to beat me you need to play a move that is not capture when you can capture.
I am not surprised that the random player can win games.
1.f3 e5 2.g4 Qh4 mate has probability of more than 1/1000,000
and
1.f3 e6 2.g4 Qh4 or 1.g4 e6 2.f3 Qh4 or 1.g4 e6 2.f4 Qh4 or
1.g4 e5 2.f4 Qh4 are also possible with probability bigger than 1/1,000,000.
A random mover is capable of playing a perfect game of chess, even if the odds of that happened are infinitesimal. A program such as Houdini, Komodo or Stockfish may perhaps be LESS likely of playing perfect chess since their moves are more controlled. For example if the best move goes against the heurstics of a strong program it will NEVER play it (unless of course you allow it enough time.)
The question is a perfect game of chess against which opponent.
Perfect play does not depend on the opponent. You might get better results by playing imperfectly against a particular opponent but that doesn't make it perfect play - it makes it a win by swindle and guile.
Perfect play is defined in the game theoretic sense. You can separate the list of playing moves into 2 categories, GOOD moves and BAD moves. GOOD moves are moves that preserve the win if there is a win - otherwise they preserve a draw if there is a draw and otherwise all moves are good moves (because in a losing position there is no move which makes your position rose than losing.) If it's not good, it's bad. So a perfect player always plays a good move. By this definition there is always AT LEAST 1 perfect move available and a perfect player always plays one of these in ANY position. It's a simple and concise definition and more importantly it's formal so that you can reason precisely with it.
Now WE as humans define good and bad moves in a much less accurate way - we define them in terms of opponent modeling and even in addition to that self-modeling (how difficult a position is to play) which is not a theoretical or precisely definable property. I have even played LOSING moves which helped me win the game due to the swindle factor. But that's not chess, that is gambling and gamesmanship or Las Vega chess if you want to give it a name.
I do understand your point - that within (or even outside) my definition of perfect there is a very fuzzy and imprecise notion of move quality that can have a strong effect on the results. However it's all based on opponent modeling and psychology - things I'm personally not that interested in discussing on a technical forum. That could go in the chess non-thinkers forum where nothing of substance is every said but it's said with great style - the mental masturbation forum.
Even I may have a good chance to play a perfect game of chess if I play against the random mover.
1.f3 e5 2.g4 Qh4 may be a perfect game of chess by black(if e5 is the right move).
I believe that the random mover is more likely to play perfect chess against the perfect player relative to weak players but I believe that top programs of today are too strong and they may draw against the perfect player in a significant part of the games.
Capital punishment would be more effective as a preventive measure if it were administered prior to the crime.
