Chess will never be solved. The computing power required is too much
Yes.
But in theory it could be done someday.
Computers will get more powerful.
Better programs will be devised.
The computer time could probably be put to better use though.
<iframe id="11911531" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" style="width:100%;border:none;" src="//www.chess.com/emboard?id=11911531"></iframe><script>addEventListener("message",e=>{e['data']&&"11911531"===e['data']['id']&&getElementById(`${e['data']['id']}`)&&(getElementById(`${e['data']['id']}`).style.height=`${e['data']['frameHeight']+30}px`)});</script>
"Some have as high as 40." ++ 40 legal moves, but most of these transposing or not sensible. Chess is full of transpositions: the branches of its tree join together in the same nodes.
"Your 3 number" ++ Is the average number of non transposing moves.
Proof: 10^38 = 3^80. Pigeonhole principle.
"You might as well extend your mistaken premise and say that 1 e3 is not winning because 1 e4 is superior, or 2 Be2 is not winning because 2 Bc4 and Bb5 are better."
++ No. We can dismiss 1 e3, as it cannot be better than 1 e4. 1 e3 draws just the same as 1 e4, but it is unthinkable that 1 e3 would win while 1 e4 would only draw.
We can dismiss 2 Be2, as it cannot be better than 2 Bc4 or 2 Bb5. 2 Be2 draws just the same as 2 Bc4 or 2 Bb5, but it is unthinkable that 2 Be2 would win and 2 Bc4 or 2 Bb5 would only draw.
"you cannot achieve perfect Alpha Beta search"
++ That is right, but it can come close. The exponent might be a bit larger than 0.5.
For Checkers it was 0.67. Chess engines have evolved more than Chinook.
Chess is easier to prune than checkers.
Next you'll be claiming that any move of a knight to the rim of the board is suboptimal and ergo not possible in a winning strategy...
<iframe id="11911531" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" style="width:100%;border:none;" src="//www.chess.com/emboard?id=11911531"></iframe><script>addEventListener("message",e=>{e['data']&&"11911531"===e['data']['id']&&getElementById(`${e['data']['id']}`)&&(getElementById(`${e['data']['id']}`).style.height=`${e['data']['frameHeight']+30}px`)});</script>
interesting.
Perhaps from the Andromeda Galaxy?
A treatise on Field Density?
Remember - you've got to hit that fourth button from left before you try to use an Embed Code.
"Some have as high as 40." ++ 40 legal moves, but most of these transposing or not sensible. Chess is full of transpositions: the branches of its tree join together in the same nodes.
"Your 3 number" ++ Is the average number of non transposing moves.
Proof: 10^38 = 3^80. Pigeonhole principle.
"You might as well extend your mistaken premise and say that 1 e3 is not winning because 1 e4 is superior, or 2 Be2 is not winning because 2 Bc4 and Bb5 are better."
++ No. We can dismiss 1 e3, as it cannot be better than 1 e4. 1 e3 draws just the same as 1 e4, but it is unthinkable that 1 e3 would win while 1 e4 would only draw.
We can dismiss 2 Be2, as it cannot be better than 2 Bc4 or 2 Bb5. 2 Be2 draws just the same as 2 Bc4 or 2 Bb5, but it is unthinkable that 2 Be2 would win and 2 Bc4 or 2 Bb5 would only draw.
"you cannot achieve perfect Alpha Beta search"
++ That is right, but it can come close. The exponent might be a bit larger than 0.5.
For Checkers it was 0.67. Chess engines have evolved more than Chinook.
Chess is easier to prune than checkers.
Next you'll be claiming that any move of a knight to the rim of the board is suboptimal and ergo not possible in a winning strategy...
All kinds of odd-looking moves can be good.
I remember in a big Karpov-Kasparov world championship game Karpov played his bishop back to c1 early.
It was the best move.
And playing the f-bishop back to f1 after castling and Re1 is a move you'll see in GM play sometimes.
Karpov was great at positional stuff. One of the hardest players to beat. Ever.
I'm not claiming I understood/understand it though.
from BC
"Nah you pretend to ignor optimissed all the time and claim you don't read his posts lol now if only I could find when you said that hmmm"
I didn't say 'all the time'.
Again you're telling falsehoods BC.
Again you're in denial.
Like when I caught you accusing multiple members of 'blocking everyone'.
And when I caught O claiming he was the only one discussing the forum topic.
A lie.
Your 'hoping that O will be muted' is understandable. Although a mistake.
Your hoping that I will be muted is pathetic though.
You hope to deter people from posting ... but you always fail.
Not 100% of the time obviously
I'm thinking Na1 must be a very rare move.
Especially early in a game.
But when I looked up rarest move it wasn't there.
from BC
"Nah you pretend to ignor optimissed all the time and claim you don't read his posts lol now if only I could find when you said that hmmm"
I didn't say 'all the time'.
Again you're telling falsehoods BC.
Again you're in denial.
Like when I caught you accusing multiple members of 'blocking everyone'.
And when I caught O claiming he was the only one discussing the forum topic.
A lie.
Your 'hoping that O will be muted' is understandable. Although a mistake.
Your hoping that I will be muted is pathetic though.
You hope to deter people from posting ... but you always fail.
I really wanna correct everything you just said but I refrain myself
Moral of the story :you also have problems not just optimissed and not just everyone else
Cough denial in your post cough cough
@12208
"The computing power required is too much"
++ Required are 10^17 positions.
The 17 ICCF WC finalists looked at 90*10^6*2*17*3600*24*365.25*2 = 1.9*10^17 positions.
@12175
"Some have as high as 40." ++ 40 legal moves, but most of these transposing or not sensible. Chess is full of transpositions: the branches of its tree join together in the same nodes.
"Your 3 number" ++ Is the average number of non transposing moves.
Proof: 10^38 = 3^80. Pigeonhole principle.
"You might as well extend your mistaken premise and say that 1 e3 is not winning because 1 e4 is superior, or 2 Be2 is not winning because 2 Bc4 and Bb5 are better."
++ No. We can dismiss 1 e3, as it cannot be better than 1 e4. 1 e3 draws just the same as 1 e4, but it is unthinkable that 1 e3 would win while 1 e4 would only draw.
We can dismiss 2 Be2, as it cannot be better than 2 Bc4 or 2 Bb5. 2 Be2 draws just the same as 2 Bc4 or 2 Bb5, but it is unthinkable that 2 Be2 would win and 2 Bc4 or 2 Bb5 would only draw.
"you cannot achieve perfect Alpha Beta search"
++ That is right, but it can come close. The exponent might be a bit larger than 0.5.
For Checkers it was 0.67. Chess engines have evolved more than Chinook.
Chess is easier to prune than checkers.
'easier to prune'.
Uh oh.
@12205
"e3 protects the critical diagonal that leads from b6 and c5 into f2 and g1."
++ But blocks the diagonal of Bc1 and controls only 1 central square d4,
while 1 e4 controls 3 central squares: e4, d5, e5.
'From the outset two moves, 1.e4 or 1.d4, open up lines for the Queen and a Bishop.
Therefore, theoretically one of these two moves must be the best,
as no other first move accomplishes so much.' - Capablanca
AlphaZero corroborated this in 4 training seeds of 1,000,000 games each with no other human input but the Laws of Chess: see Figure 31
The same scientific paper also ranks black defenses to 1 e4: Figure 30,
white continuations after 1 e4 e6: Figure 29,
white continuations after 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 Bf5: Figure 28,
black defenses after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4: Figure 27, and
black defenses after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5: Figure 26.
All of that confirms human rankings obtained over centuries.
E.g. after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 white has 27 legal moves, not the 31 claimed.
The same position also occurs after 1 e4 Nc6 2 Nf3 e5, or 1 Nf3 Nc6 2 e4 e5.
Logic ranks the 27 legal moves.
So logic prunes 27 legal moves down to 4.
'Chess is a very logical game' - Capablanca
'Chess is the art that expresses the science of logic' - Botvinnik
You don't know the difference between logic and heuristics. Botvinnik was neither a scientist nor a logician. He was a chess player (and also an electrical engineer, interestingly)
"Chess is easier to prune than checkers."
how LMFAO?
"3 Bb5: denies control of Nc6 over central squares d4 and e5, prepares O-O
3 Bc4: controls central square d5, prepares O-O
3 Nc3: develops a knight into play, controls central squares e4 and d5
3 d4: opens a diagonal for Bc1, controls central squares d4 and e5
3 c3: prepares d4, but obstructs the natural developing square of Nb1
3 d3: opens the diagonal of Bc1, but closes the diagonal of Bf1
3 b3: prepares finachetto Bb2 of Bc1
3 g3: prepares fianchetto Bg2 of Bf1
3 a3: denies ...Bb4 or ...Nb4
3 h3: denies ...Bg4 or ...Ng4, but weakens the king's side
3 a4: weakens b4
3 c4: weakens d4 and b4
3 h4: weakens g4
3 g4: weakens the king's side
3 Na3: cannot be better than 3 Nc3
3 Be2: cannot be better than 3 Bb5 or 3 Bc4
3 Bd3: cannot be better than 3 Bb5 or 3 Bc4, blocks pawn d2
3 Qe2: premature queen move, blocks diagonal of Bf1
3 Rg1: forfeits O-O
3 Ke2: puts the king in jeopardy
3 Ng1: loses 2 tempi
3 b4?: loses the pawn
3 Nxe5?: loses the knight
3 Nd4?: loses the knight
3 Ng5?: loses the knight
3 Nh4?: loses the knight
3 Ba6?: loses the bishop"
you dont know if any of those arent necessary sacrfices with a 5 move deep combination.
and you already used vastly more computing power than one node per position.
Because it's a board game between two people, and or bots, etc.
Interestingly, Botvinnik never won a world championship match as the world champion. He only ever lost or drew.
An electrical engineer who went to school in (I'm assuming) the 1930s... that would be interesting. Post Maxwell, but pre transistors, and the math they could handle would have been very limited.
I have a lot of respect for people who tackled Newton, and Laplace, and Fourier, and abstract ideas like electrical fields... all of this they had to understand without modern technology. Visualizing such ideas without the help of modern diagrams and videos. It's pretty impressive.
Living back then would have been fun. There were enormous leaps in the understanding of physics, and also pre-chess-engine times meant adjournments and correspondence chess were alive. I think I would have enjoyed it.
Yes, 'electrical' meant literally electrical. Power grids, substations, three phase supplies, that sort of stuff. That being said, it is worth remarking that Botvinnik was very interested in the possibility of chess computers at a time when they were scarcely feasible. Turing and Champernowne wrote the first computer chess program in 1948, the year that Botvinnik became world chess champion. A few years later Botvinnik got interested in them. But he was also interested in the possible application of AI for the benefit of the Soviet economy! Way ahead of the curve (and all practical technology in both cases - even Turing's early program was too complex to run on any computer of the era. And AI has taken a while to meet the hype).
I suspect you mean @tygxc. I will reverse his downvote on your post that had content other than an insult. 
I would suggest being more precise than calling him a moron, which is both vague and might be viewed as an infringement of forum rules.
@12228
Botvinnik held a PhD in engineering and worked from 1954 on a chess program Pioneer.
In 1968 he wrote Computer Chess and Long-Range Planning, in 1970 released by Springer-Verlag, New York. He considered chess as a generalised trade of material and positional values.
That is why 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? can be dismissed right away, without needing a game tree.
White loses material and gains nothing in return, hence white loses.
from BC
"Nah you pretend to ignor optimissed all the time and claim you don't read his posts lol now if only I could find when you said that hmmm"
I didn't say 'all the time'.
Again you're telling falsehoods BC.
Again you're in denial.
Like when I caught you accusing multiple members of 'blocking everyone'.
And when I caught O claiming he was the only one discussing the forum topic.
A lie.
Your 'hoping that O will be muted' is understandable. Although a mistake.
Your hoping that I will be muted is pathetic though.
You hope to deter people from posting ... but you always fail.