15918 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
A few years ago, in the distant past for some, a Canadian company by the name of Chanuk used multiple processors in a supercomputer to go through all the possible variations of Checkers (Draughts). By knowing all the possible variations that can result from certain moves, they can effectively always win the game by knowing which moves win and which moves lose. In recent news, I discovered that Chess will undergo a similar study by this company, and will be beaten within the next 10 years.
I have heard many speak of this event with negativity, and some with positivity. How do you feel about a computer successfully "Beating" chess?
Will chess still be played with the passion it is today if the game has been "beaten" by Chanuk?
Will you, personally, continue playing if the game is beaten?
My answer is that I love the game of chess, and will play it despite the supercomputer's involvement, and I hope the game of chess will continue to be played with passion and brilliance.
A few years ago, in the distant past for some, a Canadian company by the name of Chanuk used multiple processors in a supercomputer to go through all the possible variations of Checkers (Draughts). By knowing all the possible variations that can result from certain moves, they can effectively always win the game by knowing which moves win and which moves lose.
This isn't exactly true. Checkers has been solved by computational proof, but that doesn't mean the computer will always win, only that it will never lose. A very skilled player could play the computer to a draw.
It's been recognized for some time that checkers is much less mathematically complicated than chess, and tournament play has responded. A standard tournament match begins with three random moves before they players even start, so that the game doesn't get played out.
Have people stopped playing Checkers? No. Have people stopped playing Chinook (Chinook, not Chanuk, is the name of the computer) at Checkers? Yes.
In recent news, I discovered that Chess will undergo a similar study by this company, and will be beaten within the next 10 years.
I believe this is false. Can you cite a source? It just doesn't make sense numerically that chess could be solved in the same manner as checkers in that short of time.
Here are some numbers for those who think about solving chess this way. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that there are only 3 moves to look at for each side on each move (obviously there are more than this). That means that in 20 moves (40 half moves) there will be 10^19 positions to generate and evaluate. If you are able to generate and evaluate a billion positions per second, it would take you 316 years to generate and evaluate the end positions of the first 20 moves.
Given 3 moves to consider each half move, "solving chess" 30 moves deep would require generating and evaluating 10^28 positions. If you had a billion computers that could each generate and evaluate 10 billion positions per second, this would take over 31 years.
7-man endgame tablebases are expected to take another seven years to finish, so I figure we are much more than 10 years away from 16-man tablebases (a solved game). Barring aliens, time travelers, or Gods giving us new technology:
"So, what does all this mean for chess? Can we extrapolate these results from one checkers playing programs to chess playing programs? Certainly, Chinook and Fritz use similar search algorithms. They each have a positional evaluation function. They each take advantage of table bases for evaluating endgames. The big difference is the number of positions possible in each game: 1020 for checkers and 1040 for chess. To get some idea of this, if a computer could solve checkers completely in one nanosecond (a single cycle of a 1 GHz computer), it would take this computer 3000 years to solve chess."
Also, Chinook's team leader was quoted as saying, during an interview:
""Given the effort required to solve checkers, chess will remain unsolved for a long time, barring the invention of new technology.""
Perhaps you are correct loomis, I dont see how anyone could know that for sure though. In any event Marion Tinsley is incredible! I am no checkers fan but just imagine being at the very top for more than 40 years!!? I doubt this has ever been done in in any other sport/game. It makes Lasker's 27 year chess reign pale in comparison.
"I dont see how anyone could know that for sure"
Reb, do you believe it can be done for tic-tac-toe? If so, why not checkers? In principle it can be done for chess, but the time and resources necessary are too large for the current or foreseable technology of humans.
Ah, but here is the brilliancy. It simply plays itself continously using multiple processors, and the data is fed into a bank for the computer to analyze. Using multiple processors means it is playing itself at least 100 times simultaneously (this is what I have read, but it could be an untruth), will allow it to solve chess by evaluating each of the games and seeing which move won. If each game takes an hour, and the computer is on continously, that means that it will evaluate 24,000 games a day, each with multiple positions. It will then, using the data it learned while it was playing, begin another set of a hundred games. It is simply playing itself continously to learn which moves won the game. So, each year it is evaluating 8,760,000 games, which means at least that many positions. As I understand it, the company released a statement when they came out with Chinook Checkers saying they would be doing chess next. It would however, be extremely amusing if that was PR and did not mean anything definite.
Unbeliever, that still doesn't even get you close. Notice in my post that I allowed for 10 billion computers running simultaneously, so to say the least I am not impressed at 100 simultaneous games.
You say 8.76 million games a year. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say 10 million games a year and 100 moves analyzed per game. That equates to 1 billion moves per year. But as I stated above, you won't even make it at 1 billion moves per second or even 100 billion moves per second!
by chessarx a few minutes ago
Is Ben Finegold as big a jerk as he seems in his videos?
by chessmicky 2 minutes ago
Common EndGame Mistakes
by IQ136 3 minutes ago
why is ruy lopez considered the strongest
by ProfessorProfesesen 4 minutes ago
How to stop being a patzer?
by hicetnunc 5 minutes ago
Is it cheating to use youtube during games?
by Barefoot_Player 7 minutes ago
What Can I Do to Improve?
by ilikecapablanca 8 minutes ago
Geller and Tal had positive records against Fischer. Why? Explain.
by Darth_Algar 9 minutes ago
Hurt/Heal World Top 10
by Nine_fires 17 minutes ago
7/31/2015 - Slow Progression
by ngm01301 17 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!