CHESS IS NOTHING BUT A LARGER VERSION OF TIC-TAC-TOE!!!!!!
Sort:
What is wrong with you?!!!?!???
ponz111 wrote:
tygxc you really think chess is nothing but a larger version of tic tac toe??
in some way yes i grant you. wait... actually u might be right
Jul 4, 2021
0
#44
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
There's no way you can call chess as a larger version of tic tac toe . The only similarity is both are zero sum games that's it
Except chess isn't a zero sum game.
If both players simultaneously resign, both players win according to FIDE laws. (Both lose according to some rules, but none I've seen describe a zero sum game.)
chess isnt solved because its very hard to do so, but its solvable
Jul 4, 2021
0
#46
MARattigan wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
There's no way you can call chess as a larger version of tic tac toe . The only similarity is both are zero sum games that's it
Except chess isn't a zero sum game.
If both players simultaneously resign, both players win according to FIDE laws. (Both lose according to some rules, but none I've seen describe a zero sum game.)
I am talking about the purely the game theoretically.
Tic Tac Toe and Chess are not comparable at all, are they? 9 squares vs 64 is a big leap to begin comparing.
gullupakka wrote:
i just brought back a million year old forum lulw
What are you, 6 years old? This thread is from 2020. I have toothpaste older than this thread.
WindowsEnthusiast already answered this quite adequately on page 1.
ponz111 wrote:
This is a troll forum as the statement is obviously not true.
no look at it this way. imagine a computer with infinite depth. some day maybe a trillion years from now... We can see M4547 from starting pos from white maybe? or draw forced draw?
Jul 4, 2021
0
#51
btickler wrote:
gullupakka wrote:
i just brought back a million year old forum lulw
What are you, 6 years old? This thread is from 2020. I have toothpaste older than this thread.
WindowsEnthusiast already answered this quite adequately on page 1.
Just out of interest, how often do you clean your teeth?
Jul 4, 2021
0
#52
teju17 wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
This is a troll forum as the statement is obviously not true.
no look at it this way. imagine a computer with infinite depth. some day maybe a trillion years from now... We can see M4547 from starting pos from white maybe? or draw forced draw?
It's most likely a draw. But assume for a minute chess is solved for a computer. No human is going to be able to memorize everything in order play at that level. Worst case scenario, online play is compromised completely, but OTB will continue to be playable, with no major impacts, other than some potential new theory or some busted lines.
MARattigan wrote:
btickler wrote:
gullupakka wrote:
i just brought back a million year old forum lulw
What are you, 6 years old? This thread is from 2020. I have toothpaste older than this thread.
WindowsEnthusiast already answered this quite adequately on page 1.
Just out of interest, how often do you clean your teeth?
Twice a day...don't you get mini-toothpastes from your dentist at your cleanings?
#52
"imagine a computer with infinite depth" ++ No infinite depth is required, chess is a finite game. Due to the 50 moves rule each chess game ends in at most 5898.5 moves.
"some day maybe a trillion years from now" ++ the universe is only 13.8 billion years old. Chess will probably be solved this century by a quantum computer.
"We can see M4547 from starting pos from white maybe?" ++ No way
"or forced draw?" ++ Yes, that has already been conjectured by Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Fischer, Kasparov and corroborated by TCEC, ICCF, AlphaZero.
Martin_Stahl wrote:
teju17 wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
This is a troll forum as the statement is obviously not true.
no look at it this way. imagine a computer with infinite depth. some day maybe a trillion years from now... We can see M4547 from starting pos from white maybe? or draw forced draw?
It's most likely a draw. But assume for a minute chess is solved for a computer. No human is going to be able to memorize everything in order play at that level. Worst case scenario, online play is compromised completely, but OTB will continue to be playable, with no major impacts, other than some potential new theory or some busted lines.
ok good explanation...
btickler wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
btickler wrote:
gullupakka wrote:
i just brought back a million year old forum lulw
What are you, 6 years old? This thread is from 2020. I have toothpaste older than this thread.
WindowsEnthusiast already answered this quite adequately on page 1.
Just out of interest, how often do you clean your teeth?
Twice a day...don't you get mini-toothpastes from your dentist at your cleanings?
preserve that toothpaste for a hundred years and you can auction it at a museum!
teju17 wrote:
btickler wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
btickler wrote:
gullupakka wrote:
i just brought back a million year old forum lulw
What are you, 6 years old? This thread is from 2020. I have toothpaste older than this thread.
WindowsEnthusiast already answered this quite adequately on page 1.
Just out of interest, how often do you clean your teeth?
Twice a day...don't you get mini-toothpastes from your dentist at your cleanings?
preserve that toothpaste for a hundred years and you can auction it at a museum!
I throw them in my travel bag, and periodically remove them when they get insanely old 
.
tygxc wrote:
#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.
Not so.
- It is believed that even quantum computers do not have the ability to solve NP-complete, let alone EXPTIME-complete, problems, in polynomial time. In practical terms, quantum computing, using things like Grover's algorithm, can reduce the search space to the square root thereof (roughly the size of the checkers game complexity; checkers has been solved). While quantum computers can be in several states at once, that number is not limitless for any particular quantum computer, particularly what we have today (at most a few tens of qubits). Remember that it is believed that EXPTIME-complete problems cannot be solved in polynomial space (as EXPTIME != PSPACE).
- Please point to a scholarly paper that suggests 10^20 would be sufficient. You haven't demonstrated that illegal or unrealistic positions are the overwhelming majority; how do you conclude that it would shave off 23 orders of magnitude instead of, say, 5-10? The most telling sign that it isn't is that otherwise, we could quickly solve chess on an existing supercomputer if so.
- The 50-move rule is ignored for the purposes of solving chess.
- "Forward search" -- I take this to mean naive minimax, but it is so much more complicated than that.
#59
Quantum computers are commercially available and hold the potential to be much much faster than conventional computers as reported in scholarly papers. They are capable of boolean operations and those are what is necessary to solve chess.
Short answer: there are 10^40 sensible and legal positions, the 2 prong method needs to visit about the square root of those hence 10^20.
If you want it scholarly:
There is a scholarly thread here by John Tromp who calculated the exact number of possible positions with no excess promotions. He also estimated the fraction of legal positions by sampling.
There is also the scholarly paper by Schaeffer of how he solved checkers which showed he needed only visit a small fraction of total possible positions.
The 50 moves rule and the 3 fold repetition rule are essential for solving chess. Without either 50 moves rule or 3 fold repetition rule chess is no finite game and cannot be solved. With 3 fold repetition rule alone chess is finite and thus solvable, but the complication is enormous.
Forward search is how checkers was solved. A checkers program called Chinook calculated forward towards an endgame table base. For chess this would mean to look at the top 4 possibilities by white and then prove there is 1 move by black that ultimately reaches a draw in say an 8 men endgame table base.
There's no way you can call chess as a larger version of tic tac toe . The only similarity is both are zero sum games that's it