Maybe using chess engines is unreliable, a programme that stores every possible move in a huge database and detects which sequence of moves leads to a checkmate might answer our question. But then, we don't know which is a forced win...
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Jan 1, 2023
0
#5303
@DesperateKingWalk
That's just @tygxc's version of alphabetical order.
i agree
Jan 1, 2023
0
#5305
I don't agree.
Try playing the Nalimov or Syzygy top move as White against the chess.com computer from the position shown below.
White to play and mate in 16
(You can find the Syzygy moves here - they're exactly the same as Nalimov's for this endgame, I believe.)
how do you set up a custom chess board, like with 20 queens vs just 2 pawns?
Chess is one of the best games for training the mind
@7055
"If both these players play perfect chess. Then why do all have different chess ratings"
++ The rating reflects the results of all games they ever played.
"And what about these guys with higher chess ratings" ++ These earned their ratings years ago, when more errors were made and it was easier to gain rating and earn GM titles.
"How do you play perfect chess and be lower rated then all these ICCF players"
++ Because it is now so difficult to gain rating or earn grandmaster titles, as many play perfect chess and the many draws lose rating that offsets the gain of the few wins.
@7056
"using chess engines is unreliable" ++ The chess engine is reliable to calculate, but not to evaluate. To evaluate the 7-men endgame table base is reliable: draw / win / loss. The engine just serves to calculate until the 7-men endgame table base.
"a programme that stores every possible move in a huge database" ++ You cannot store every legal move: you will end up with 10^44 positions and that is too much. However, you can store only the relevant positions: 10^17.
"detects which sequence of moves leads to a checkmate" ++ No, weakly solving Chess does not lead to checkmate, it leads to a 7-men endgame table base draw or to a prior 3-fold repetition.
"we don't know which is a forced win..." ++ We know Chess is a draw.
Jan 1, 2023
0
#5310
Chess will be completely solved in the future. It might take more than thousands of years, but there will be a time when our civilization becomes advanced enough.
What if you train stockfish for 2 years? I think his rating would be 564555555468 ngl Dont cancel me plz
Optimissed wrote:
Enough people can't help talking rubbish in this thread because the problems are actually quite hard to grasp with the mind. I was really just trying to encourage you to focus better. If you did, you'd be one of the few. Don't talk about silly stuff like infinite speed because no-one will understand the context if they don't read every post. There are enough people here who simply cannot grasp the problems, without others encouraging their lack of focus.
I thought I was being courteous by answering your questions. Apparently this was a mistake, you answered this attempt with rudeness. I shall venture not to repeat this mistake in the future.
I could explain in detail how you were being rude, but having seen how you respond to courteous posts, and how you have also gone after others even in the short time I have been here, I am sure you would be all too happy to make that into a pissing contest that I do not wish to take part in.
Jan 1, 2023
0
#5313
Empfartalot wrote:
Chess will be completely solved in the future. It might take more than thousands of years, but there will be a time when our civilization becomes advanced enough.
Only if we don't become advanced enough to have better things to do.
Jan 1, 2023
0
#5314
Elroch wrote:
Empfartalot wrote:
Chess will be completely solved in the future. It might take more than thousands of years, but there will be a time when our civilization becomes advanced enough.
Only if we don't become advanced enough to have better things to do.
Perhaps we will become so efficient at producing and consuming resources that people will be able to have their smartphone interface projected directly into their eyes so that they can spend every waking moment staring at it, which it seems many people want. Wouldn't that be awesome?
@7076
"how ICCF player play perfect chess"
++ Yes, statistics show >99% of ICCF WC Finals games are perfect games with optimal play from both sides. I presented samples of such perfect games above.
Here is one more: in 57 moves from the initial position to a 7-men endgame table base draw.
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164274
"If you play perfect it is not difficult to have a perfect rating"
++ It is difficult: playing perfect chess against other players that play perfect chess leads to draws and loses rating instead of gaining rating.
"ICCF players have a different rating, because they do not play perfect chess."
++ No, because of playing opponents that play perfect chess too and because of playing more or less opponents that do not play perfect chess.
In the WC32 of 17 participants only 4 lost 1 or more games and 13 played perfect chess.
Troll man!
Optimissed wrote:
Botlosenik wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Enough people can't help talking rubbish in this thread because the problems are actually quite hard to grasp with the mind. I was really just trying to encourage you to focus better. If you did, you'd be one of the few. Don't talk about silly stuff like infinite speed because no-one will understand the context if they don't read every post. There are enough people here who simply cannot grasp the problems, without others encouraging their lack of focus.
I thought I was being courteous by answering your questions. Apparently this was a mistake, you answered this attempt with rudeness. I shall venture not to repeat this mistake in the future.
I could explain in detail how you were being rude, but having seen how you respond to courteous posts, and how you have also gone after others even in the short time I have been here, I am sure you would be all too happy to make that into a pissing contest that I do not wish to take part in.
Notice who gave you a thumbs up. There are too many people trying to get themselves taken seriously without advancing serious arguments. If you wrote something intelligent, I'd be on your side and supporting you. All you have to do is raise your game. If Morning Glory and MAR agree with you, isn't that a sign you're on the wrong track?
All I was doing is pointing out that your arguments are all jumbled up. You are hardly alone in that so don't take it to heart. Just learn from your mistakes, make better arguments and try to understand why you're being disagreed with, rather than going for the lowest common denominator, which is that I was being "rude", so you go on the attack. Are you a troll like Morning Glory and MAR?
Yea, like you have ever been on the side of anyone who has not knelt to your precious ego. I will block you for now. You have nothing to tell me, you have not said anything that was useful to me since I arrived, and you will not listen to what I have to say.
Jan 2, 2023
0
#5317
Botlosenik wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Botlosenik wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Enough people can't help talking rubbish in this thread because the problems are actually quite hard to grasp with the mind. I was really just trying to encourage you to focus better. If you did, you'd be one of the few. Don't talk about silly stuff like infinite speed because no-one will understand the context if they don't read every post. There are enough people here who simply cannot grasp the problems, without others encouraging their lack of focus.
I thought I was being courteous by answering your questions. Apparently this was a mistake, you answered this attempt with rudeness. I shall venture not to repeat this mistake in the future.
I could explain in detail how you were being rude, but having seen how you respond to courteous posts, and how you have also gone after others even in the short time I have been here, I am sure you would be all too happy to make that into a pissing contest that I do not wish to take part in.
Notice who gave you a thumbs up. There are too many people trying to get themselves taken seriously without advancing serious arguments. If you wrote something intelligent, I'd be on your side and supporting you. All you have to do is raise your game. If Morning Glory and MAR agree with you, isn't that a sign you're on the wrong track?
All I was doing is pointing out that your arguments are all jumbled up. You are hardly alone in that so don't take it to heart. Just learn from your mistakes, make better arguments and try to understand why you're being disagreed with, rather than going for the lowest common denominator, which is that I was being "rude", so you go on the attack. Are you a troll like Morning Glory and MAR?
Yea, like you have ever been on the side of anyone who has not knelt to your precious ego. I will block you for now. You have nothing to tell me, you have not said anything that was useful to me since I arrived, and you will not listen to what I have to say.
In my view, you should have stuck to your original position and not responded again. He has a desire to be indulged and will use any amount of provocation and manipulation to get it. Going silent is the way to deal with a person like that.
MorningGlory84 wrote:
Botlosenik wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Botlosenik wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Enough people can't help talking rubbish in this thread because the problems are actually quite hard to grasp with the mind. I was really just trying to encourage you to focus better. If you did, you'd be one of the few. Don't talk about silly stuff like infinite speed because no-one will understand the context if they don't read every post. There are enough people here who simply cannot grasp the problems, without others encouraging their lack of focus.
I thought I was being courteous by answering your questions. Apparently this was a mistake, you answered this attempt with rudeness. I shall venture not to repeat this mistake in the future.
I could explain in detail how you were being rude, but having seen how you respond to courteous posts, and how you have also gone after others even in the short time I have been here, I am sure you would be all too happy to make that into a pissing contest that I do not wish to take part in.
Notice who gave you a thumbs up. There are too many people trying to get themselves taken seriously without advancing serious arguments. If you wrote something intelligent, I'd be on your side and supporting you. All you have to do is raise your game. If Morning Glory and MAR agree with you, isn't that a sign you're on the wrong track?
All I was doing is pointing out that your arguments are all jumbled up. You are hardly alone in that so don't take it to heart. Just learn from your mistakes, make better arguments and try to understand why you're being disagreed with, rather than going for the lowest common denominator, which is that I was being "rude", so you go on the attack. Are you a troll like Morning Glory and MAR?
Yea, like you have ever been on the side of anyone who has not knelt to your precious ego. I will block you for now. You have nothing to tell me, you have not said anything that was useful to me since I arrived, and you will not listen to what I have to say.
In my view, you should have stuck to your original position and not responded again. He has a desire to be indulged and will use any amount of provocation and manipulation to get it. Going silent is the way to deal with a person like that.
You may have a point. It's a small matter though. It's not like I am going to make him see the error in his ways.
Jan 2, 2023
0
#5319
tygxc wrote:
@7042
"the maximum number of moves in a legal game is about 5000 moves, (a quick google suggested 5899" ++ 5898.5 due to the 50-moves rule. https://wismuth.com/chess/longest-game.html However, from the initial position a 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition is reached long before 300 moves.
Didn't you mean long before 30 moves?
But it's not limited by the 50 move rule because claiming is optional. And in a practical game you don't claim as soon as it's reached if you have mating material anyway (or even if you don't in many cases).
Stockfish set to 10000 ply would not only be geologically slow, it would also be unreliable. It is obvious it can only get to any large depth by ignoring lines that a cursory evaluation concludes are "not promising". Such evaluations are wrong at a rate that is not only non-zero but significant to getting the right answer (hence Stockfish' unquestionable imperfection).
Note that an engine losing a game means it got the choice of a move dead wrong at some point. What it thought was a move that was the very best was actually a blunder that gave away the game. That sentence shows the degree to which engines are unreliable. This doesn't stop being true with more time per move, it just becomes rarer (at very high computational cost).
For "geologically slow", you seem to not have gotten the context, someone suggested infinite speed, which obviously means nothing will be slow.
Sorry, not quite with you. How can you get infinite speed?
A bit back, DesperateKingWalk said this:
"Type B Shannon chess engines like Stockfish. Were not designed to solve chess. And could not solve chess even on a computer with infinite speed, and time. Because it was not designed to do such a task."
What I have said, that you reply to now, is me replying to that thought experiment.
Previously, there has been quite a discussion, on this kind of subject. Perhaps you haven't read it? And don't realise just how long such extended, brute force searches would take? We are talking about millions of years and at the end of it there would be no way to store the information or to sort and compare it, so it would be meaningless.
Have you already forgotten that I said infinite speed, and you even asked about it above? As for "no way to store the information", I also addressed that in the original post, I added to the thought experiment that you also have infinite memory, and then I suggested that SF could in theory definitely "solve chess". Since we now go into a "verbal battle", I should point out that it wouldn't actually be able to do this if you magically gave it infinite speed/memory of course, because SF code is written to be efficient, and is not designed to address an infinite size memory, but the algorithm involved (my understanding is SF uses Minimax, not Type B Shannon algorithm) allows for it.
Do you realise how long it would take to do a complete solution of all possible chess games, even with no evaluation at all? At present computing speeds longer than the life of the universe.
Here you seem to repeat yourself. I therefore will not try to address this separately