1) Engines can play 960
2) 32 piece EGTB solves for all 960 positions too. I.e. a complete solution for standard chess is a complete solution for 960.
2.1) If computers keep progressing at their current rate, it should take another 10^100 years to solve chess (ok, not that long, but it's something dumb, go ahead and do that math if you'd like).
PS: My gripe with most 960 advocates is that they and their opponent's don't know openings anyway, so it doesn't even matter.
I mean, I don't know openings nearly well enough either. The people who I expect to be annoyed (but don't seem too upset) are top professionals who can seemingly get a draw at will out of many many openings.
It sounds like you're just bitter, and no solving chess 960 is different than solving regular chess because part of solving regular chess is solving the opening. The way pieces move out of the opening certainly does influence the number of possible out comes and randomizing the positions in the opening of how the pieces are arranged would create more possible outcomes by basic math principle.. so you're wrong.
it should take another 10^100 years to solve chess
You're so absolutely clueless.. it really pisses me off.
You're the opposite worst end of a certain type of chess player versus the way you describe me..
If you watch a simple game of chess analyzed by grandmasters simply the idea some moves are wrong, and there are only a number of right moves in a position is already a starting indicator that you couldn't be any more wrong.
Chess super computers 3000+ battle out to games 100+ moves, because they have NO WAY of out-playing each other at that level with no mistakes in under 50 moves.
In 10 years they will be playing to 200+ moves games.
If you still consider 1000 moves to solve one side a version of human chess.. you're wrong.. because grandmasters almost never play games beyond 60 moves unless it's a really long end game position.. computers are still playing the mid game by move 60.
It wouldn't take 10^100 years for HUMANS to solve chess without computers.. But it probably would because they'd get bored of doing it.
If computers were never invented.. no processing chips (Robert Noyce & team/ company) + the theory behind how an integrated processor would work by research teams before that.. the whole history behind that whole thing.. (watch it on Netflix) and there were no calculators and other gizmos that lead to computers blah blah.. if humans never had computers.. they'd probably solve chess in the next 1000 years without them. Computers will simply hugely accelerate that.
The difference between humans and computers is.. computers can only sovle tables or data within the frame of equations/ data.. like a calculator can only calculate to an Nth degree.
Humans aren't constrainted by an equation and introduce variables and parameters to an extension of existing and new equations.. From the very time Chess was invented it was always an extremely elaborate equation.. meaning it would inveitably be solved at some point in the far future. (set pieces, set rules, set movements).. the only way is to change the rules or add pieces.. or add squares.
Playing the "I'm a sheep crying wolf" card to counter-attack someone is really shameless, and reminds me of how the media treats political candidates.
*You're attacking me by making me look like a bad person because you can't win an argument to push your agenda(10/10 you're on the other users side of the argument). Maybe you should get smart and fight with words instead of excuses.
I also don't know how you analyzed me taking anything as a personal attack.. I consider your post a personal attack by interpreting how I responded as if I was taking a personal attack. If you thoroughly read my post there is zero indication as if I had ever felt that way.
I'm 100% completed responding to this thread, because I already added all my thoughts and knowledge to my argument.. and won't get into a personal argument with you.. because I never took anything personally until you made things seem that way. See ya!
OP is an obvious troll...always looking for a fight right out of the gate. *yawn*
You're the opposite worst end of a certain type of chess player [that you describe me as].
"2.1) If computers keep progressing at their current rate, it should take another 10^100 years to solve chess (ok, not that long, but it's something dumb, go ahead and do that math if you'd like).
PS: My gripe with most 960 advocates is that they and their opponent's don't know openings anyway, so it doesn't even matter."
I feel like I'm preaching towards the people on the end of the arguement.. anyone on this forum would only care about chess "being an eternal entity" because it's what their careers, life, and money depends on so how can I expect fairness?
OP is an obvious troll...always looking for a fight right out of the gate. *yawn*
No you're the troll who instead of reading through the 250 words or so of coherent logical and well framed argument decided to make issue out of something that only became an issue when it was made something of? This is still the internet isn't it? Or is it now something bigger htan that? It's real life.. real feelings and real lives are involved.. (I guess I also have to indicate sarcasm when it's intended so my statements don't further get manipulated)
"First, I am not the person you attacked. Apparently, you are so filled with rage that you cannot see this.
And here are your personal attacks
"You're so absolutely clueless.. "
"You're the opposite worst end of a certain type of chess player" "
No you're full of rage. I never cared.. don't care.. I was simply speaking off the cuff.. I wasn't intending to make it personal.. and then you came along and turned this whole thing into a series of accusations.
"I thought that you had made your last post? Oh well."
I thought you were an adult or a professional here to look out on someone else's behalf?? looks like you intend to stay here and continue this out when nothing is being instigated only explained.. yet you continue to try to play this innocent game of making me out to be someone I'm not to get your desired result..
(Just to be clear.. your accusations towards me so far
1) I was feeling personally attacked, therefore personally attacked someone else.
- No, I never did or in my post ever indicated I felt that way. I have no personal knowledge or information of the person I had responded to.. so it's impossible for it to have been personal. By referring to him as a (type of chess player) it was soley based on the opinion conveyed in his post towards mine.
2) "I'm so full of rage"
3) That because I am now continuing to reply to this thread it is an indicator of something personal about ME.. rather than me simply straightening the details out of this dicussion which has turned into an argument THAT I.. indicated it WOULD turn into if I tried to continue to mend the situation.. which you continue to prompt...WITH complete disregard for the original frame of the THREAD, and the discussion and details of that thread which I presented implying that YOU my friend are the troll and not me. You still have yet to make a single comment pertaining to the ORIGINAL POST.
Paul E chess.. you still haven't made a single comment pertaining to the original post.
If you are not a moderator of these forums you have no business commenting as you are.
Practically speaking, in the sense that computers play better, chess is already solved. And I think in a very soft way we know that chess is a draw with best play.
But, while possible, it's not yet solved in a concrete mathematical sense. I believe there was a very long topic about this that ponz started where these lines were constantly drawn, while the few who argued the other side constantly blurred them.
Assuming Moore's law is absolute, which everyone says is impossible, but assuming it is, I went ahead and did a rough calculation. Chess would be solved in ~200 years, which is less than I thought I have to admit. It seems though with our current understanding of physics and the type of technology we have, that Moore's law will stop after, some say 10, some say 40 years. I did a rough calculation for that too. In 40 years the fastest computer can solve chess in 1.3x10^24 years (longer than the age of the observable universe). In other words to solve chess it's necessary that we can continue doubling the speed of computers for nearly 200 years.
How we would store this solution is another huge problem though. Assuming each position and its evaluation can be stored using one bit of information, and that we can store 1 bit on one atom, then the storage device would be roughly the size of the earth itself.
And even if we did have a 32 piece EGTB it would be so wildly impractical that humans would largely play as they do today, choosing lines for practical purposes.
As an experiment consider a complex endgame (well, complex to me) like B+B vs N (knight ideally placed on b2). This is a forced win as proven by computers. So theoretically you can just memorize all the liens... but it's stupidly difficult to actually play this perfectly against a person. This is just 5 pieces on the board. A 32 piece EGTB would be a technological achievement, but, you know, 10^100 times more complex to utilize in practical play (this 10^100 is less hyperbole than my first, as the game tree is 10^120 IIRC). This is a point, no offense, I think many chess players fail to realize because they haven't studied much. They may even assume a solution would contain one winning line instead of 10^10 with 10^50 variations that lead to a draw, with an equal amount that lose, but are too difficult to refute over the board unless you've committed them to memory.
As for theoretically solvable, sure, of course it is. IMO it's just not practical. In a different recent topic this link was given http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solving_chess it's a very short read you might find somewhat interesting.
And if #2 sounded a little bitter, maybe that's true to an extent. To me chess is a great competitive game, but, more often than I'd like, people misunderstand the game. At least the game as I see it.
Knowing opening moves and usual middlegame evaluations makes it deeper and more competitive. It's part of the beauty of the competition. Chess 960, to me, is like saying lets change the bounciness of the tennis ball after every set because pro players are too used to how the ball moves. Maybe we could make the field unlevel too. But knowing how the ball moves and controlling it is beautiful and why we can admire these professional athletes.
To non-GM 960 advocates it seems like they think of chess as more of a raw intelligence game. CHESS IS NOT INTELLIGENCE! Like other admirable skills it's practice practice practice!
I have some very smart friends who really don't like chess. Instead, one of them really enjoys learning and playing a new board game (seemingly every week). You know, some people really like video games. I hate them because you spend a few months getting good, then no one plays it anymore and I feel like it was a waste. This is more of that raw intelligence though. Analyze the rules and game play, and come up with the best solution. People my look down on random board games and video games, but I think the really good players are quite intelligent.They master it in a month while others are mediocre after years.
So in no way do I mean this disrespectfully, but maybe try some of those routes instead of chess. It's mentally stimulating and takes a lot of intelligence. Chess is more like a musical instrument. You practice and practice and practice.
I've realized another reason why Fischer chess may be on of the greatest inventions or add on's to the Chess world..
1) It's impossible to cheat because no computers calculate these positions out of the opening, up until at least mid game/ end game positions.
(well perhaps you can still set up mid game positions with an engine if you have time, while playing a game.. but very much more unlikely to have that time/ motivation.)
2) THIS game may take hundreds of years to solve. I think chess will be solved in the next 50-100 years by super computers.. but this game takes those potential solutions figures and raises it to a multiplied level of possbilities.. an undetectable additional number of solutions.. albeit one day in the future 200+ years from now that game will be solved too. (technology grows exponentionally so even though it becomes a more complex problem.. technology evolves in an exponential curve.)
I also think a lot of cancers will be cured in the next 100 years.. there is no one cure for cancer. Interestingly enough Duke University researchers have used modified polio virus strains put into cancerous brain tumor's patients in order for the body's immune system to recognize and attack it.. and it's had a high solvency rate! Thought I'd add that in there. Google it.