teju17 wrote:
Chess games may be finite
CHESS IS NOTHING BUT A LARGER VERSION OF TIC-TAC-TOE!!!!!!
Sort:
teju17 wrote:
SO, what if WE make a chess engine that is NOT A.I, and JUST AN INTERACTIVE MEMORY IN WHICH WE INSERT THE MEMORY LIKE: IF E4, PUT E6. AND IT NEVER LOSES EVEN TO ALPHA ZERO,........................
should i start planning on how to make one?
Sure, you can start planning on how to make one. A good place to start is to get a degree in computer science so you understand the challenges inherent to this. I don't know if you have any idea of how difficult this is; if it were this easy, chess would've been solved long ago.
if it were this easy, chess would've been solved long ago. yeah, it will take hundred years i GUESS?
teju17 wrote:
if it were this easy, chess would've been solved long ago. yeah, it will take hundred years i GUESS?
No one knows how long it'll take, or if humans will ever be able to accomplish this.
WindowsEnthusiast wrote:
teju17 wrote:
if it were this easy, chess would've been solved long ago. yeah, it will take hundred years i GUESS?
No one knows how long it'll take, or if humans will ever be able to accomplish this.
Yeah, unfortunately.
GMBakersfield wrote:
Oy Socratic, so ja re, hoshiyari mat mar.
this forum is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo dead
The point of chess is that you don't make a mistake, also there are more mistakes. Usually, if you do make a small mistake in chess it is easy to take the game back, when you have a mistake in tic tac toe there is no getting the game back. Of course, you can make a blunder and lose the game up.
kierancurtis wrote:
The point of chess is that you don't make a mistake, also there are more mistakes. Usually, if you do make a small mistake in chess it is easy to take the game back, when you have a mistake in tic tac toe there is no getting the game back. Of course, you can make a blunder and lose the game up.
not against a comp
Jul 4, 2021
0
#31
then why does agadmator say that its a completely new game as of move 10
i think thats stupid because no matter how strong the computer it can calculate every positions because they are almost infinite
gullupakka wrote:
then why does agadmator say that its a completely new game as of move 10
excactly
#12
"no deterministic algorithm for generalized chess can take less than exponential time in the size of the board" ++ quantum computing offers the possibility to calculate candidate moves in parallel instead of sequentially thus reducing the time to linear instead of exponential
"The current 7-piece tablebase takes 140 TB of space and an 8-piece one would need a petabyte." ++ Present table bases contain all positions with 7 men or less and have the position FEN as input and give win/draw/loss, depth to mate DTM, depth to zero DTZ as output. To solve chess a table base that contains only the drawn positions suffices. It is enough to calculate until the table base is reached and then check if it is in the table base of drawn positions or not.
"a 32-piece tablebase, with around 10^43 positions" Many of the 10^43 positions are either illegal or irrelevant. A more realistic number is 10^20.
"each position takes about a fraction of a kilobyte to specify in FEN" ++ a FEN needs like 64 byte.
"each move another few bytes" a move needs 12 bit
"the biggest data warehouses are on the order of 10^20 bytes at most." Only a fraction of the legal and relevant 10^20 positions needs access by the engine, so 10^20 bytes may suffice. For example if you try to establish if 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 is a draw or not, then all 32 men and 31 men positions are no longer relevant and neither are all positions with white pawns on e2, d2 or black pawns on a7, c7, d7. The most promising method is forward calculation towards a sufficiently large table base of drawn positions. This is the same 2 prong method that was used to prove checkers a draw.
"We are going to need Moore's Law to continue holding for computer storage for quite a few years for this to be feasible, not to mention the amount of compute time that would be needed to compile the tablebase (quantum computing will likely be needed)." ++ Agree, we need more technological advance especially in quantum computing to fully solve chess.
This is a troll forum as the statement is obviously not true.
#36
The statement is true but not yet proven.
tygxc you really think chess is nothing but a larger version of tic tac toe??
#38
Yes, or, if you like it better: a larger version of checkers.
There are between 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (10^43) and 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (10^50) possible chess positions.
#40
There is an upper bound of 10^45.888
https://tromp.github.io/chess/chess.html
However most of these are illegal or irrelevant.
A more realistic number is 10^20.
That is still very large.
So if chess is a larger version of tic tac toe or checkers, then it is a much larger version.
Chess games may be finite but the number of possible games is beyond imagining. There is no known sequence of moves that guarantees either side a win or draw. Chess hasn't been solved and it won't be in the next decades (barring ridiculous computing advancement involving quantum computing or such drastic changes).