This thread is still going? Impressive
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
@7124
"If chess is to be solved, a system must know everything about every position"
++ That would be strongly solving chess to a 32-men table base,
requiring all 10^44 legal positions, which would take too much time and storage.
Weakly solving chess requires only 10^17 relevant positions, which can be done in 5 years.
"Real-world problem-solving costs money but ultimately makes money."
++ Weakly solving Chess costs 3 million $ of money and makes no money.
The same for weakly solving Checkers or Losing Chess:
these cost money and did not make any money, but were done anyway.
personally i agree
Jan 7, 2023
0
#5345
tygxc wrote:
@7124
"If chess is to be solved, a system must know everything about every position"
++ That would be strongly solving chess to a 32-men table base,
Yes.
requiring all 10^44 legal positions, which would take too much time and storage.
Weakly solving chess requires only 10^17 relevant positions, which can be done in 5 years.
Still a fail.
This amounts to an ignorant attempt to redefine the very precise word "solve" to mean something sloppy and very ambiguous, replacing valid deduction with the strong beliefs of unreliable evaluators, themselves based on heuristics generalised from a tiny number (compared to the size of chess) of examples using induction. For example "the side that is a piece up will win except when it is obvious to an unspecified unreliable evaluator that there is a reason they won't"
@7128
If you only admit a stupid and dumb way of weakly solving, then it takes 500 years.
A smart and clever way takes 5 years.
Jan 7, 2023
0
#5347
That's not why. Solving chess, at least in the sense of strongly solving chess, would be to provide an algorithm that evaluates every legal position to "white mates with perfect play", "black mates with perfect play", or "draw", and provide a move that does not change that evaluation. (Since chess games have a finite length, said algorithm can consistently win any winning position, and force a draw in any drawn position.)
No chess engine we have right now can do that. Such an engine's self-play would result in either consistent wins from one side, or consistent draws.
Yes, that does mean we have solved chess with up to 7 pieces on the board (an algorithm for that is available on this website).
Jan 7, 2023
0
#5348
Still, we all believe that the computers and programs of the year 2100 will far outclass those of the present. Why should we just assume that those entities will not be able to punch large holes in the analyses that the Sveshnikov five year plan might come up with? Couple that with the unanalyzed lines the human experts judge to be unworthy of consideration and the immense number of possibilities that exist following opening moves that the plan will never examine and the "solution" would be unconvincing.
Jan 7, 2023
0
#5349
If I walked a quadrillion years, could I reach the end of the multiverse?
Jan 7, 2023
0
#5350
One-hundred tredecillion possible positions most of which are illegal. It's a lawless multiverse.
Jan 7, 2023
0
#5351
Game by game? That's an unsurmountable problem. We'll never get a solution. Reminds me of Asimov's short story The Last Question.
Jan 7, 2023
0
#5352
Optimissed wrote:
A way that doesn't work at all takes 5 years.
It is surprising to me that it is beyond @tygxc to understand that what he is proposing is not a way to solve chess, but a way to replace an uncertain evaluation of the opening position by a less uncertain (but still uncertain) one. We need any random person involved in peer-reviewed research on the subject to explain to him that he has got it wrong (since he can't glean this from their work, like most people can).
Jan 7, 2023
0
#5353
charmquark314 wrote:
That's not why. Solving chess, at least in the sense of strongly solving chess, would be to provide an algorithm that evaluates every legal position to "white mates with perfect play", "black mates with perfect play", or "draw", and provide a move that does not change that evaluation. (Since chess games have a finite length, said algorithm can consistently win any winning position, and force a draw in any drawn position.)
"Chess" denotes several different games each with its own set of solutions. Of the FIDE versions only games played according to the post 2017 competition rules are limited to a finite length. Games played under post 2017 basic rules or all pre 2017 rules are not.
That means that for the unlimited games simply providing a move that doesn't change the evaluation is not enough. E.g. for a position with this diagram (with the White king on one of the two squares shown) and White to play ...
an algorithm that recommends moving the king to the other square doesn't change the evaluation but also doesn't solve the position.
And strictly speaking the evaluation is necessary at most for drawn positions in the unlimited games. Just a move will do.
No chess engine we have right now can do that. Such an engine's self-play would result in either consistent wins from one side, or consistent draws.
True, which is not to say a consistent result indicates perfect play. It may be the case that SF15 would draw against itself no matter how many attempts it made with less than geological think time per move from this Black winning position, for example.
(As opposed to a random legal move generator v SF15 which would probably achieve the mate in far fewer attempts than a monkey on a typewriter would need etc.)
Yes, that does mean we have solved chess with up to 7 pieces on the board (an algorithm for that is available on this website).
'Fraid not. For example it doesn't do the final position in this competition rules game which is a mate in 16.
(Try using the top move it shows against the computer in "Analysis".)
@7133
"the computers and programs of the year 2100 will far outclass those of the present"
++ Yes, they will make fewer mistakes for the same time per move.
That does not change anything, it will only go faster.
"punch large holes in the analyses that the Sveshnikov five year plan"
++ Because the plan of Sveshnikov to 'bring all openings to technical endgames' depends on the 7-men endgame table base and you cannot punch holes into that.
"unanalyzed lines the human experts judge to be unworthy of consideration"
++ 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? is unworthy of consideration and will stay so.
"possibilities that exist following opening moves that the plan will never examine"
++ If 1 e4 & 1 d4 are calculated to 7-men endgame table base draws, then 1 a4 is not relevant.
If 1 Nf3 is calculated to a 7-men endgame table base draw, then 1 Nh3 is not relevant.
Likewise 1 f3 and 1 g4? are not relevant.
If the best moves cannot win for white, then the worst move cannot win for white either.
@7139
"not a way to solve chess"
++ It is a way to weakly solve Chess, just like done for Checkers, Losing Chess, Connect Four
"person involved in peer-reviewed research on the subject"
++ Prof. van den Herik, authority on the subject: 'it is beneficial to incorporate game knowledge into game solving'. Schaeffer used best first heuristic and pruning in solving Checkers.
Allis solved Connect Four with knowledge rules only.
There is no reason why weakly solving Chess should be subject to more stringent restrictions than weakly solving Checkers, Losing Chess, Connect Four, Nine Men's Morris etc.
Chess is 1000 times more complex than Checkers to weakly solve.
You need not invent additional complications.
Jan 8, 2023
0
#5356
How long would it take to solve chess with an unlimited supply of stubby pencils? Sorry about your insanity tygxc. I do okay living with mine.
@7146
"Chess is not checker!"
++ No, Chess is not Checkers. Chess is 1000 times more complicated to weakly solve than Checkers: 10^17 relevant positions instead of 10^14.
"1. Could not play a game of chess.
2 Could not beat any human at chess.
3. Could not give a refutation on any chess positions.
4. Could not play a perfect game of chess.
5. Could not give any kind of analysis."
++ None of these are part of weakly solving Chess.
Please re-read the definition of weakly solving a game.
'weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition'
A strategy can be a set of moves, like Checkers, or a set of rules like Connect Four, or a combination of both.
"And no more useful then a opening book of moves we already have as best."
++ Oh yes, as it gives a path from the initial position to a 7-men endgame table base no matter what white tries. It will never end with 'white is slightly better' or +=, or +0.50, it will only end in 7-men endgame table base draws.
"Your opening book can give no more answers, or give any other moves."
++ All relevant white tries are included.
"Chess is not a forcing game like checkers"
++ Nine Men's Morris is not a forcing game either and has been solved to a draw as well.
Jan 8, 2023
0
#5358
tygxc wrote:
...
"unanalyzed lines the human experts judge to be unworthy of consideration"
++ 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? is unworthy of consideration and will stay so.
...
Your stance is that the line is unworthy of consideration but you still can't win it as Black against Stockfish.
If you actually had a solution you might even be able to win it against Stockfish.
That's what solutions are for.
That's just one of the reasons why your proposal is to spend 5 years not solving chess.
Jan 8, 2023
0
#5359
And 4.82 x 10^44 is the estimated number of positions in basic rules chess, which is a drop in the ocean compared with the number of positions in competition rules chess.
Jan 8, 2023
0
#5360
The difference is huge for a strong solution of chess, but not for a weak solution which merely has to achieve the optimal result of the starting position, not to successfully take advantage of blunders by the opponent.
The reason is that if you have been following an optimal strategy in a game, you need not fear a repetition of a position you have already been in changing the value of the position, regardless of the value of the opening position. If the value of the opening position was a win to you, your strategy will never permit the opponent to return to a position (if it did, they could go round in circles so your strategy does not win). If the value of the opening position is a draw, repetitions do no harm to getting the theoretical result.
@7120
"judgement of imperfect humans to decide what is/is not optimal play"
++ No, the 7-men endgame table base is the judge: draw / win / loss.
We do not need to decide what is optimal play.
As for the single black response:
if it leads to a 7-men endgame table base draw, then it is optimal.
As for the several white moves: we do not need to decide if one of them is optimal or not,
it is enough not all selected candidate moves are not optimal.
That is the difference between analysis,
which ends in some imperfect evaluation like 'white is slightly better', +=, +0.50.,
and solving, which ends in a 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition.
That is also the difference of playing with Stockfish: it has to decide on one move to play,
and solving with Stockfish: it can retain several e.g. 4 candidate moves for further analysis.
"you will ignore many variations to save time" ++ Yes, but only those we are sure about.
"you will not consider openings not played to a draw in ICCF games"
++ ICCF WC Finals games only open with 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, and 1 Nf3 and for good reason.
The same in human top competition: only those four nowadays.
"answer the question of whether chess is a win for either side or a draw"
++ That question has been answered long ago: Chess is a draw.
The real question is: 'How?'
A related question is: 'How long does it take?'
If doing it the stupid way with just a computer and calculating all the junk like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? down to the end, then weakly solving Chess needs 10^19 positions and takes 500 years.
If doing it a smart and clever way with humans and computers,
then weakly solving Chess needs 10^17 positions and takes 5 years, like Sveshnikov said.