Chess will never be solved, here's why

Sort:
Avatar of Optimissed

First it was horse-drawn, as in France but then static engines became quite common. When I was a child, the working mine near the docks in Whitehaven used a static engine on a railway line right up to the mid 1960s to haul the empties back up the spoil heap to be filled. Nearly all the time they didn't need the engine because the full wagons coming down the slope pulled the empties back up via a loop hawser. You could stand literally one foot from where the full wagons came down over the chute and they knocked out the pins and the coal went into the ships waiting to take it to Ireland or the Isle of Man. Absolutely zero health and safety. Anyone could go into the docks, which were just a continuation of the street along the dock-side. No protective walls or fences so if you wanted you could fall down the gap between the ships and the dock walls and get crushed to death. I suppose as a result I had absolutely no fear of heights and became a half decent rock climber.

Avatar of Optimissed
Elroch wrote:

It's a matter of what you call a railway. I recall learning about the first railways at school (one of the few things from history that stuck) - the Stockton and Darlington railway, in Victorian times. I did have to look up the date. That referred to mechanically powered, public railways, as most people imagine them. Horses pulling trolleys on rails are not really the same thing.

Wikipedia answers the question you were considering: "The oldest known, man/animal-hauled railways date back to the 6th century BC in Corinth, Greece."

I have to say that from my limited experience of Greek railways in the late 20th century, they probably got less efficient over the intervening period. Being several hours late was the norm.

I can't remember being on a Greek railway but I did travel right across Anatolia to Erzurum from Istanbul, starting about Boxing Day 1975, which was an atrocious Winter. We were double hauled but even so got stuck on a mountainside for about 15 hours in a total white0-out and we had to wait for the blizzard to stop before the snowplough came and dug us out.

Most people in my compartment were from Kars, up near the then Soviet border beyond Mt Ararat. I've always had a good resistance to cold so I was ok but they systematically took the carriage apart to get all the wood and we actually had an open fire going in the middle of the compartment. They were very kind to me ...  let me sleep in the netting luggage rack, which was an excellent hammock and shared their food with me because I had virtually none. As a result of many similar experiences in Turkey I love Turks in general.

Avatar of mpaetz

     The "railroad" in ancient Corinth was a limestone road across the Isthmus of Corinth. Ships were floated onto wagon beds and hauled to the other side, making the trip from western Greece or Italy much faster than sailing around the Peloponnesus. Grooves were cut into the stone to keep the vehicles "on track". The exact method used in the hauling (teams of animals? of men? series of pulleys?) is not known. 

     Built circa 600 BCE, it was busy until the Romans sacked Corinth in 146 BCE--about the same time they destroyed Carthage, ridding themselves of their two greatest commercial rivals. It seems to have been used for another two or three centuries after that, and parts of it can still be seen today. 

     Railroads and their primitive precursors are likely not what PrimitiveMover meant when he said "driving a car".

Avatar of tygxc

@6612

"computers will likely solve chess in 10 years"
++ Chess can be weakly solved in 5 years, but it depends on the funding of about $ 3 million.
There are 10^17 relevant positions for weakly solving chess and modern computers guided by humans can exhaust those in 5 years.

Avatar of DiogenesDue
tygxc wrote:

@6612

"computers will likely solve chess in 10 years"
++ Chess can be weakly solved in 5 years, but it depends on the funding of about $ 3 million.
There are 10^17 relevant positions for weakly solving chess and modern computers guided by humans can exhaust those in 5 years.

Just preface all of Tygxc's posts with "I really would like to believe that..." and you will have a much more accurate picture of objective reality.

Avatar of Optimissed
btickler wrote:
tygxc wrote:

@6612

"computers will likely solve chess in 10 years"
++ Chess can be weakly solved in 5 years, but it depends on the funding of about $ 3 million.
There are 10^17 relevant positions for weakly solving chess and modern computers guided by humans can exhaust those in 5 years.

Just preface all of Tygxc's posts with "I really would like to believe that..." and you will have a much more accurate picture of objective reality.


The problem is that with "2. Ba6 definitely loses" he's more on the ball than some others. The fantasy devalues the real.

Avatar of Optimissed
mpaetz wrote:

     The "railroad" in ancient Corinth was a limestone road across the Isthmus of Corinth. Ships were floated onto wagon beds and hauled to the other side, making the trip from western Greece or Italy much faster than sailing around the Peloponnesus. Grooves were cut into the stone to keep the vehicles "on track". The exact method used in the hauling (teams of animals? of men? series of pulleys?) is not known. 

     Built circa 600 BCE, it was busy until the Romans sacked Corinth in 146 BCE--about the same time they destroyed Carthage, ridding themselves of their two greatest commercial rivals. It seems to have been used for another two or three centuries after that, and parts of it can still be seen today. 

     Railroads and their primitive precursors are likely not what PrimitiveMover meant when he said "driving a car".


A car is a car, although it was normal to call railway carriages "cars"; but you don't drive them. I believe that perhaps you needn't have mentioned that, because it shows that you missed something.

Avatar of mpaetz

     I believe that PowerfulMover used the word "car" in post #6617 in the common American meaning of an automobile--a self-powered vehicle not needing tracks that can be driven wherever the operator wishes.

Avatar of Optimissed
mpaetz wrote:

     I believe that PowerfulMover used the word "car" in post #6617 in the common American meaning of an automobile--a self-powered vehicle not needing tracks that can be driven wherever the operator wishes.

You should stop being completely tedious because you're becoming Kinda Spongey.

Avatar of tygxc

Back on topic after the trolls have been spamming off-topic about railways.

Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined
to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition. [1] 
The game-theoretic value of a game is the outcome when all participants play optimally. [1]

Optimal play is play without errors.
An error (?) is a move that changes a game from drawn to lost, or from won to drawn. [2]
A blunder or double error (??) changes a game from won to lost.

A strategy can be moves like Checkers [3], or rules like Connect Four [4], or a combination.
It is beneficial to incorporate knowledge into game solving programs. [1]
Chess knowledge can be acquired from the Laws of Chess only. [5]
Example: ‘Other things being equal, any material gain, no matter how small, means success.’ [7]

The objective of Chess is to checkmate the opponent. [6]
A direct attack on the king can succeed only if the opponent does not play optimally.
Queening a pawn is more feasible to achieve checkmate.
We know from gambits that 3 tempi in the initial position are worth 1 pawn. [7]
1 tempo in the initial position is not enough to win: a pawn can queen, a tempo not.

Millions of human & engine games confirm that Chess is a draw.
In the last 10 ICCF world championship finals: 1469 games = 1177 draws + 292 decisive. [8]
Of the 1177 draws 1140 are perfect games with optimal play from both sides. 
This follows from fitting a Poisson distribution of the errors per game.

Starting from the 10^44 legal positions [9], none of the 56,011 legal positions in a sample of 1 million can result from optimal play by both sides.
The 3 random samples displayed have 3 or more rooks and/or bishops per side.

Gourion’s 10^37 [10] is a better estimate, but in a sample of 10,000 [11] none can result from optimal play either. That leaves 10^37 / 10000 = 10^33 positions. 
Multiply by 10 to include positions with 3 or 4 queens: 10^33 * 10 = 10^34.

Weakly solving Chess calls for a strategy, i.e. one strategy only. [1]
Many here fail to understand that and confuse weakly solved with strongly solved.
On w white moves not w black responses each, but 1 black response only.
w * 1 = Sqrt (w * w)
Thus Sqrt (10^34) = 10^17 positions are relevant to weakly solving Chess.

Losing Chess has been weakly solved with 10^9 positions. [12] Checkers has been weakly solved with 10^14 positions, only 19 of the 300 openings: 200 transpositions and 81 pruned. [3]

Cloud engines calculate a billion nodes / s. [13] Thus 3 such engines calculate in 5 years:
10^9 nodes/s/ engine * 3 engines * 3600 s/h * 24 h/d * 365.25 d/a * 5 a = 4.4 * 10^17 nodes
A diagram is the location of the men on the board.
A position is a diagram + side to move + castling rights + en passant flag. [6]
A node is a position + evaluation + history. [13]

Thus 3 engines exhaust in 5 years all 10^17 relevant positions to weakly solve Chess.
This costs 3 million $ to hire 3 grandmasters and rent 3 engines.

GM Sveshnikov was right: 'Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and solve chess.' [14]

References:

[1] Van den Herik, 2002, Games solved: Now and in the future, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370201001527 

[2] Hübner, 1996, Twenty-five Annotated Games, Berlin, pp. 7–8.

[3] Schaeffer, 2007, Checkers Is Solved, https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1144079 

[4] Allis, 1988, A Knowledge-based Approach of Connect-Four The Game is Solved: White Wins  http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~fernau/DSL0607/Masterthesis-Viergewinnt.pdf 

[5] McGrath et. al., 2022, Acquisition of Chess Knowledge in AlphaZero, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2111.09259.pdf 

[6] FIDE, 2018, Laws of Chess https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012018 

[7] Capablanca, 1935, A Primer of Chess https://archive.org/details/aprimerofchess/page/n47/mode/2up 

[8] ICCF, 2022, World Championship Finals https://www.iccf.com/tables 

[9] Tromp, 2022, Chess Position Ranking, https://github.com/tromp/ChessPositionRanking 

[10] Gourion, 2021, An upper bound for the number of chess diagrams without promotion, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.09386.pdf 

[11] Tromp, 2022, Sample 10k random positions with no promotions, https://github.com/tromp/ChessPositionRanking/blob/noproms/sortedRnd10kFENs 

[12] Watkins, Losing Chess: 1. e3 wins for White, https://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/~watkins/LOSING_CHESS/LCsolved.pdf 

[13] NPS - What are the "Nodes per Second" in Chess Engine Analysis
https://chessify.me/blog/nps-what-are-the-nodes-per-second-in-chess-engine-analysis 

[14] Sveshnikov, 2007, Give me five years, and I will solve chess, Interview with Eldar Mukhametov https://e3e5.com/article.php?id=1467 

 

Avatar of Elroch
tygxc wrote:

Thus 3 engines exhaust in 5 years all 10^17 relevant positions to weakly solve Chess.

No. What weak chess players call "relevant" has no place in weakly solving chess, as indicated by it having no place in the academic literature. (Check for yourself).

What does it indicate when a student makes an error and the teacher points it out and then the student makes the same error and the cycle is repeated a dozen times?  (Other than wasted patience by the teacher).

Avatar of llama36

Are you saying you can square root the positions because we're assuming we can ignore all non-optimal play by black?

How do you discard non-optimal moves without analyzing them?

Avatar of Optimissed
Elroch wrote:
tygxc wrote:

Thus 3 engines exhaust in 5 years all 10^17 relevant positions to weakly solve Chess.

No. What weak chess players call "relevant" has no place in weakly solving chess, as indicated by its absence from the entire academic literature. (Check for yourself).

You know when a student makes an error and the teacher points it out and then the student makes the same error and the cycle is repeated a dozen times?  What does this behaviour indicate? (Other than wasted patience by the teacher)

To be fair, that's assumptive. A relevant position can be interpreted as genuinely relevant, according to best analysis. Naturally, we have to give ty the benefit of the doubt here, because what he's saying is correct if "relevant" is interpreted correctly.

Both of you are therefore making errors. Ty because he believes that chess can be weakly solved in five years, which is nonsense; and you because you are being unfair in interpreting "relevant" according to the fact that he's already emitted a patently nonsensical opinion. But that doesn't directly cause other things he says to be wrong.

Avatar of Elroch

His meaning of "relevant" is blatantly wrong because of the (relatively) tiny quoted number of positions, which corresponds to a mere 57 binary choices.

Avatar of llama36
Elroch wrote:

 which corresponds to a mere 57 binary choices

lol, when you put it like that it certainly seems absurd.

Avatar of llama36

That's a nice sanity check.

No matter how eloquently you argue for the 10^17 reduction, after realizing this you have to go back and figure out how it's wrong.

Avatar of asher48

This seems like a chat for smart people I'm not one of them so I'm going to leave

Avatar of Elroch
asher48 wrote:

This seems like a chat for smart people I'm not one of them so I'm going to leave

Sounds smart.

Avatar of Optimissed
tygxc wrote:


A nude is a position + evaluation + history. [13]

Back on topic after the trolls have been spamming off-topic about railways.


As for you, I don't know why I'm bothering to be fair to you. I'm probably the best friend you could have, if you were capable of understanding more than you do and if you were capable of learning. You act like both a troll and a spammer.

Avatar of Optimissed
Elroch wrote:

His meaning of "relevant" is blatantly wrong because of the (relatively) tiny quoted number of positions, which corresponds to a mere 57 binary choices (cf 58 half-moves = 29 moves).


That doesn't matter, though. We know he's wrong but we can't deliberately misunderstand a key word like "relevant" and hope to look any better than him. A proper search tree ignores properly identified, irrelevant continuations. A relevant move is one that isn't properly identified as a blunder and also one that doesn't make the game longer with the same outcome.