Well 5 years, starting now, 2 years ago, or even 5 years from now does seem a little unreasonable.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Aug 17, 2022
0
#3283
Maybe my logic is flawed, but I would think that if tik tak toe can be solved then so can chess. 🤔
@4073
"I feel there are slightly more attractive investments."
++ Of course solving Chess is not an attractive investment.
Solving Checkers or Losing Chess did not give any return on investment either.
Sending men to the Moon did not give real payback either.
Sending humans to Mars will not give payback either.
"ask the question "is chess a draw?"
++ No, that is not the question.
In the pre-engine are chess games were adjourned after move 40 and resumed next day after overnight analysis. The players tried to answer 2 questions:
1) Is the position a draw, a win, or a loss?
2) How?
Ultra-weakly solving chess is answering question 1) for the initial position.
Weakly solving chess is answering question 2) for the initial position.
White tries to win, black tries to draw.
White fails, black succeeds
Then Chess is weakly solved.
@4075
"If the starting point is when resources become available."
++ The engines exist that calculate a billion positions per second. They cost money to rent.
"Which is probably at least 200 years from now."
++ We do not know when somebody opens his wallet. It might as well be tomorrow.
"But even then my guess is it wont be solved"
++ If the engine exhausts the 100 million billion legal, sensible, reachable, relevant positions then chess is weakly solved, then it is proven just like Checkers or Losing Chess, no speculation. We will then know for sure how black can draw.
tygxc wrote:
@4075
"If the starting point is when resources become available."
++ The engines exist that calculate a billion positions per second. They cost money to rent.
"Which is probably at least 200 years from now."
++ We do not know when somebody opens his wallet. It might as well be tomorrow.
"But even then my guess is it wont be solved"
++ If the engine exhausts the 100 million billion legal, sensible, reachable, relevant positions then chess is weakly solved, then it is proven just like Checkers or Losing Chess, no speculation. We will then know for sure how black can draw.
Your whole premise is speculation...of the worst kind. Unsubstantiated and with a sole proponent.
You have no idea of the "resources" which DOES exist, and not to mention the possibility that is already solvED.
stancco wrote:
You have no idea of the "resources" which DOES exist, and not to mention the possibility that is already solvED.
Also speculation, if you are talking to me. I have an entire career in computers, databases, and systems design.
Chess is not already solved, by the way. It's not even 1% solved.
@4087
"It's not even 1% solved."
++ Yes, that is right. From ICCF WC Finals we have more than 1000 perfect games.
The weak solution of chess is expected to have a proof tree of about a billion positions, i.e. 10 million games. So chess is about 0.01% solved.
Aug 18, 2022
0
#3290
tygxc wrote:
@4087
"It's not even 1% solved."
++ Yes, that is right. From ICCF WC Finals we have more than 1000 games that may or may not be perfect.
The weak solution of chess is expected to have a proof tree of about a billion positions, i.e. 10 million games by crazy people who don't understand that this would require a tablebase of some vast size like 10^30, probably because they failed to notice the significance of this aspect of the solution of checkers.
So chess is about 0.01% solved except for that vast tablebase. Which is beyond current resources, even if you had a billion dollars to waste.
Aug 18, 2022
0
#3291
Yoyostrng wrote:
Maybe my logic is flawed, but I would think that if tik tak toe can be solved then so can chess. 🤔
Congratulations: you are now a game theorist (for having observed they are very similar types of games: finite deterministic games of perfect information with 3 results).
@4089
"games that may or may not be perfect." ++ 1469 games, 1177 draws, 1104 perfect games
"a proof tree of about a billion positions, i.e. 10 million games"
++ Still not understood by crazy people who don't understand anything at all and who still do not understand the difference between weakly solving and strongly solving.
@4087
Carlsen, Caruana, and Nepo and their teams of grandmasters and cloud engines have prepared their World Championship matches for months and have presumably already solved B33, C89, C42 that is 3 of the 500 ECO codes or 0.6%.
tygxc wrote:
@4087
Carlsen, Caruana, and Nepo and their teams of grandmasters and cloud engines have prepared their World Championship matches for months and have presumably already solved B33, C89, C42 that is 3 of the 500 ECO codes or 0.6%.
Prepping engines lines against other players is not solving anything, even if you let the engine run for months. Everybody but you seems to grasp this.
Optimissed wrote:
The man is on another planet.
The Planet Of New Orleans
btickler wrote:
stancco wrote:
You have no idea of the "resources" which DOES exist, and not to mention the possibility that is already solvED.
Also speculation, if you are talking to me. I have an entire career in computers, databases, and systems design.
Chess is not already solved, by the way. It's not even 1% solved.
I did not.
But now you mentioned it, assuming you work for NASA and the military on their top secret project, I would like to know more about where they are about at the moment - I always thought they are ahead.
Aug 20, 2022
0
#3298
@tygxc, do you not understand what happens when an imperfect player evaluates a position?
Sometimes they are wrong. And I mean completely wrong - wrong enough to have the wrong belief about what the correct result is. This happens in every decisive game.
All available sources of opinions are imperfect and can be completely wrong. You are proclaiming that they never are, which is simply an error. It's a good bet that on an individual position, a very strong player is correct in their evaluation. It is a good bet for several such positions. It becomes a pretty shaky bet for a lot of positions - you don't need that many before the probability that the player is wrong at least once is high. With enough positions, it becomes almost certain the player is wrong some time.
Aug 20, 2022
0
#3299
tygxc wrote:
...
++ Still not understood by crazy people who don't understand anything at all and who still do not understand the difference between weakly solving and strongly solving.
Pot calling the kettle?
You're the one that continues to assert the Syzygy tablebases strongly solve 7 man chess even after it's explained to you with examples why they don't.
@4108
"what happens when an imperfect player evaluates a position?"
++ Neither the player nor the engine evaluates the position,
the 7-men endgame table base evaluates the position and it is perfect.
"This happens in every decisive game." ++ Yes, every decisive game has some error.
"All available sources of opinions are imperfect and can be completely wrong."
++ Yes that is true, but some absolute statements are sure not to be wrong.
Certain endgames with opposite colored bishops are drawn.
1 a4 cannot be a better move than 1 e4 or 1 d4
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 loses for white
"It's a good bet that on an individual position, a very strong player is correct in their evaluation."
++ I even calculated that probability.
If you let the 10^9 nodes/s cloud engine run for 17 s, or a desktop for 4.7 hours, then the absolutely correct move will be among the top 4 engine moves in all but 1 case in 10^20.
It can't possibly be solved in 5 years. This has been proven by argument, since no proper argument has been given, nor will be given, to show that a solution will ever be possible. As for achieving it in five years from any point in the foreseeable future, we can reasonably say that current understanding shows it to be impossible.
It isn't really a debate, since we don't have the tools to achieve it. It's nothing to do with money, because resources which don't exist would be necessary.
Yes. So we can only guess at when the 5 year point would start. I say at least 200 years, probably at least 300 years from now. For the reason you said, it would take resources that don't exist right now.
But no matter when it starts, there will be a lot of PatriotGames posterity telling Optimissed posterity "told ya so".