Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
DreamGoatofMinecraft
Sep 17, 2022
0
#4801
This is sooo annoying.
stopvacuuming wrote:
cope
also applies to you.
It's always funny to watch people complain about threads they have the ability to skip by. Do you habitually punish yourself? It takes a certain lack of self awareness.
Provide some meaningful content of your own...bonus points if it is actually chess related.
Sep 17, 2022
0
#4804
You know chess will be solved.
It definitely will be.
We see all these movies about cyber technology.
Maybe, we'll develop super computer intellects and actually solve chess.
Sep 17, 2022
0
#4805
tygxc wrote:
Losing Chess has been solved with 10^9 positions only, not 10^44.
What does this have to do with the solvability of chess? Different rules, fewer possible moves.
Sep 17, 2022
0
#4806
stopvacuuming wrote:
i wonder how good the world would be if elroch and optimissed didnt waste their time and energy arguing over pointless topics
I half agree!
Sep 17, 2022
0
#4807
btickler wrote:
mikekalish wrote:
tygxc wrote:
[snip]
chess is a finite game
Can you support this?
If I might interject, I think that perhaps you are thinking that without the 50 move rule, endless repetitions can occur and so chess is therefore infinite and could not be solved...but in terms of solving, an endless repetition is simply a draw, and the calculations move onward.
In the case of tablebases, they are built going backwards from checkmate. So, you cannot ever logically reach an endless repetition in a regression like this. We're at 7 man tablebases right now, so for 7 pieces or less, if the position is *not* forced mate and not in the tablebase, it is therefore a draw. Draws are inferred by exclusion.
When thinking about the logic of generating tablebases I came to the conclusion that at each pass of the algorithm, as you add the evaluation of more positions further from mate, at some point you have a step when no more are added. At this stage all the unevaluated positions must be draws. (The reason being that every mate in N leads to at least one mate in N-1 on the next move, so if there are no mate in N, there can be no mate in more than N). Is this convincing?
I also thought along the lines of btickler for a version of chess with no repetition/50 move rules, that for mathematical purposes alone you can extend to infinite games and say an infinite game is a draw. This could be made finite without changing anything significant about the value of starting positions (I assert) by adding either a very large N-move rule or a repetition rule.
SpaceVoidSuperEvil wrote:
You know chess will be solved.
It definitely will be.
We see all these movies about cyber technology.
Maybe, we'll develop super computer intellects and actually solve chess.
It definitely won't be. 
Sep 17, 2022
0
#4809
Elroch wrote:
stopvacuuming wrote:
i wonder how good the world would be if elroch and optimissed didnt waste their time and energy arguing over pointless topics
I half agree!
Infinitesimal impact on the world but infinity impact on this Forum. 
Sep 17, 2022
0
#4810
mikekalish wrote:
Throughout this thread, some have mistakenly considered extremely large finite numbers to be the equivalent of infinity....."for all practical purposes". This is a mistake. No matter how large a finite number is, it is not the equivalent of infinity....or even close.... period. And any logic or conclusions that follow that assumption are false.
You don't get any large finite numbers, they're all completely miniscule compared with practically all the rest. Come to that you don't get any large infinite numbers either.
mikekalish wrote:
Elroch wrote:
stopvacuuming wrote:
i wonder how good the world would be if elroch and optimissed didnt waste their time and energy arguing over pointless topics
I half agree!
Infinitesimal impact on the world but infinity impact on this Forum.
The main problem is the circularity and repetition of disagreements. I'm quite optimistic but not holding my breath.
Sep 17, 2022
0
#4812
MARattigan wrote:
You don't get any large finite numbers, they're all completely miniscule compared with practically all the rest. Come to that you don't get any large infinite numbers either.
"Minuscule" is one of the most commonly misspelled words in our language. How did spell check not catch that?
stopvacuuming wrote:
im just pointing out the almost funny sadness of it all... taking 5 seconds to do so is not equivalent to you guys writing essays also that was pretty funny elroch i cant lie
I am worried about all these schools nowadays where 2-3 paragraphs are given credit as an "essay" .
Wow
@4908
"It's just a theorem, not a proven fact."
++ It is the first mathematical theorem proven by a combination of humans and computers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem
Weakly solving chess should be done by a similar tandem
of good assistants with the latest computers during 5 years.
@4921
"At this stage all the unevaluated positions must be draws."
++ Think again. 1 g4 e5 2 f4 is no draw.
@4919
"What does this have to do with the solvability of chess? Different rules, fewer possible moves."
++ It proves that the number of relevant positions 10^17 to weakly solve Chess
can be much lower than the number of legal positions 10^44.
@4928
"2-3 paragraphs are given credit as an "essay""
++ A short post is not understood, a long post is not read.
tygxc wrote:
@4928
"2-3 paragraphs are given credit as an "essay""
++ A short post is not understood, a long post is not read.
Short and long are subjective. These are not absolutes any more than 10^17 is an absolute .