Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Jesus, 9000 posts
Mar 22, 2023
0
#6703
Intellectual_26 wrote:
"There are 9,132,484 distinct positions or 120,921,506 total positions after 6 moves (three moves for White and three moves for Black)."
Wow, Awesome! Not so, unsolvable whatsoever.
Once, Again.
hello
this is insightufl
There are only a finite amount of moves in chess, so ‘technically’ chess can be “solved” by knowing every single possible move sequence. Chess has been solved in this way for seven pieces or less. It will keep expanding exponentially as technology’s power increases exponentially, but after every piece added the move sequences also increase exponentially. The question is whether or not computers can store that much new information in a reasonable amount of time not whether it’s at least possible. I think it will happen soon after quantum computing takes a major role
Mar 22, 2023
0
#6707
MF972 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Incidentally, everyone who has an understanding of how machine learning, reinforcement learning and AlphaZero work also knows that the "knowledge" acquired by AlphaZero and referred to in the paper title is inductive in origin and uncertain in character. Indeed, it is explicitly uncertain, in that AlphaZero expresses its knowledge about positions in the form of an array of probabilities.
Probabilities are not "explicitly uncertain", you can and usually do chose the move with the highest expectation value, in an absolutely deterministic manner. There isn't anything random or undeterministic here (unless it's added by hand, e.g., to randomly choose one among equivalent (?) opening moves.)
you can and usually do chose the move with the highest expectation value
That should read
you can and usually do chose a move with the highest expectation value
SF15 with NNUE can demonstrably have all moves with the same (sometimes incorrect) evaluation in many situations.
Intellectual_26 wrote:
Intellectual_26 wrote:
"There are 9,132,484 distinct positions or 120,921,506 total positions after 6 moves (three moves for White and three moves for Black)."
Wow, Awesome! Not so, unsolvable whatsoever.
Once, Again.
Just as pointless as last time.
You have to evaluate 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000+ positions to solve chess (10^44).
Mar 22, 2023
0
#6709
DiogenesDue wrote:
Intellectual_26 wrote:
Intellectual_26 wrote:
"There are 9,132,484 distinct positions or 120,921,506 total positions after 6 moves (three moves for White and three moves for Black)."
Wow, Awesome! Not so, unsolvable whatsoever.
Once, Again.
Just as pointless as last time.
You have to evaluate 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000+ positions to solve chess (10^44).
Not even if you're planning to solve chess according to current FIDE basic rules (no 50/75 move or triple/quintuple repetition rules) which has generally been regarded as a version of chess only since 2017 (at any rate for many years).
Several points.
1. The best estimate (Tromp) of the number of legal positions under current FIDE basic rules is nearly five times the number you quote. I would guess the number you quote would not cover the legal positions pursuant to most KPP v KPP positions if the 50/75 move and triple/quintuple repetition rules are included in the rules (depending on what you mean by "position").
2. It's not necessary to evaluate all legal positions to weakly solve chess. How many depends on the method of finding a solution.
3. First of all you need a relevant definition of "position" and "chess" - relevant to some method of finding a solution, that is. It's easy to find situations in possible games under rules that include the 50/75 move and triple/quintuple repetition rules where the FENs at the completion of a move are identical but the correct result in terms of win, draw or loss are different.
What do you guys mean by solving chess?
MARattigan wrote:
Not even if you're planning to solve chess according to current FIDE basic rules (no 50 move or triple repetition rules) which has generally been regarded as chess only since 2017.
Several points.
1. The best estimate of the number of legal positions under current FIDE basic rules is nearly five times the number you quote. I would guess the number you quote would not cover the legal positions pursuant to most KPP v KPP positions if the 50 move and triple repetition rules are included in the rules (depending on what you mean by "position").
2. It's not necessary to evaluate all legal positions to weakly solve chess. How many depends on the method of finding a solution.
3. First of all you need a relevant definition of "position" - relevant to some method of finding a solution, that is. It's easy to find situations in possible games under rules that include the 50 move and triple repetition rules where the FENs at the completion of a move are identical but the correct result in terms of win, draw or loss are different.
Ok, I'll put you down on the side of the guy who thinks 6 ply is enough to do the job 
.
Until a viable method gets put forth for shortcutting the process, the number is over 10^40. Whether that is 10^40, 10^42, 10^44, 10^46, etc, is immaterial...they are all impossible given current technology *and* any reasonably foreseeable technology. "5 times the number" is relatively insignificant at those orders of magnitude.
Cue the dweebs that think that quantum computers as they sit now can solve chess...
DannyTheClauncher wrote:
What do you guys mean by solving chess?
Look it up. Google is your friend.
Mar 22, 2023
0
#6713
DiogenesDue wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Not even if you're planning to solve chess according to current FIDE basic rules (no 50 move or triple repetition rules) which has generally been regarded as chess only since 2017.
Several points.
1. The best estimate of the number of legal positions under current FIDE basic rules is nearly five times the number you quote. I would guess the number you quote would not cover the legal positions pursuant to most KPP v KPP positions if the 50 move and triple repetition rules are included in the rules (depending on what you mean by "position").
2. It's not necessary to evaluate all legal positions to weakly solve chess. How many depends on the method of finding a solution.
3. First of all you need a relevant definition of "position" - relevant to some method of finding a solution, that is. It's easy to find situations in possible games under rules that include the 50 move and triple repetition rules where the FENs at the completion of a move are identical but the correct result in terms of win, draw or loss are different.
Ok, I'll put you down on the side of the guy who thinks 6 ply is enough to do the job .
Until a viable method gets put forth for shortcutting the process, the number is over 10^40. Whether that is 10^40, 10^42, 10^44, 10^46, etc, is immaterial...they are all impossible given current technology *and* any reasonably foreseeable technology. "5 times the number" is relatively insignificant at those orders of magnitude.
Cue the dweebs that think that quantum computers as they sit now can solve chess...
We already have a viable method for shortcutting the process, it's called tablebase generation. Unfortunately, while it's a viable method (I should say viable methods) for shortcutting the process, it still doesn't result in a viable process.
For example a KNN v K tablebase contains around 12.5 million positions under FIDE basic rules (in most people's parlance), but less than a hundred will be included in a Nalimov tablebase (possibly a few thousand considered in total). By far the biggest reductions arise when the 50/75 move and triple/quintuple repetition rules are included.
Granted a factor of 4.82 is not particularly significant in terms of 10^44, but it should at least mean @tygxc starts talking about 11 years using 3 cloud computers + 7 maids with 7 mops instead of 5 years, if he's going to be consistent in his own terms. It would, of course, be an insignificant step in the right direction in real terms.
Mar 22, 2023
0
#6714
Chess has been solved (by that I mean all endgames with up to seven pieces)
Mar 22, 2023
0
#6715
Kyobir wrote:
Chess has been solved (by that I mean all endgames with up to seven pieces)
Not quite.
No positions with castling rights even if you're talking about weakly solved. (And a lot of the Lomonosov DTM solutions are no longer freely available, if available at all, though that's not strictly relevant.)
MARattigan wrote:
We already have a viable method for shortcutting the process, it's called tablebase generation. Unfortunately, while it's a viable method (I should say viable methods) for shortcutting the process, it still doesn't result in a viable process.
For example a KNN v K tablebase contains around 12.5 million positions under FIDE basic rules (in most people's parlance), but less than a hundred will be included in a Nalimov tablebase (possibly a few thousand considered in total). By far the biggest reductions arise when the 50/75 move and triple/quintuple repetition rules are included.
Granted a factor of 4.82 is not particularly significant in terms of 10^44, but it should at least mean @tygxc starts talking about 11 years using 3 cloud computers + 7 maids with 7 mops instead of 5 years, if he's going to be consistent in his own terms. It would, of course, be an insignificant step in the right direction in real terms.
Tablebases are the solution, but not a shortcut, and we're already in agreement that they are the only viable path right now. Which is why chess will not be solved in our lifetimes.
DannyTheClauncher wrote:
What do you guys mean by solving chess?
It would be like the current 7-piece tablebase, only with 32 pieces from a particular starting point.
i agree
TheChessIntellectReturns wrote:
Imagine a chess position of X paradigms.
Now, a chess computer rated 3000 solves that position. All well and good.
Could another computer rated a zillion solve that position better than Rybka?
No, because not even chess computer zillion could solve the Ruy Lopez better than a sad FIDE master could.
the point is, there's chess positions with exact solutions. Either e4, or d4, or c4, etc.
nothing in the world can change that.
So if you are talking about chess as a competitive sport, then chess has already been solved by kasparov, heck, by capablanca.
If you are talking chess as a meaningless sequence of algorithms, where solving chess equates not to logical solutions of positional and tactical prowess, but as 'how many chess positions could ensure from this one?'' type of solutions, then, the solutions are infinite.
So can chess be solved? If it is as a competitive sport where one side must, win, then it has already been solved. Every possible BEST move in chess has been deduced long ago.
If chess is a meaningless set of moves, with no goal in sight, then sure, chess will never be solved.
True.
Probabilities explicitly express (i.e. quantify) uncertainty. That is what they are for.
AlphaZero and LeelaZero play chess in a way which is much more natural to me than conventional engines: central to their approach is trying to estimate the probability of different results if they play a particular move. Exactly what you need to make a decision but can't be certain. Of course they achieve this capability to estimate probabilities from the experience of large numbers of examples. The key step is one common to a great deal of reinforcement learning - the rules of chess provide a relationship between estimates on one move and the estimates for all the positions that can be reached from that position by a legal move. To oversimplify, this is what is used to improve the estimates as they learn.