The game tree for chess is finite, because of the 50-move rules (and similar rules). It's just a matter of FINITE time of checking out each possibility with a min-max algorithm.
The problem is that that finite time could be a quadrillion times the age of the universe.
So can chess be solved? Yes. Can it be solved in a practical amount of time? Probably not.
It is always worth remembering that discourse is about concepts. Names are just labels for those concepts. The only significance of the labels is that people understand what concept they refer to in a context.
It's a fact that for convenience, people use a term for one thing in one context and for another in another, with readers being clear of the "local" meaning.
The very minor relevance to this discussion is that chess is a game of perfect information in the strongest sense, and all theorems about such games apply. It's not a big deal to anyone who already understands what the optimum value of a position is, and what an optimal strategy is.
[For example, in one context "number" might refer to a positive integer, in another to an integer, in another to a real number, in another to a complex number.]
Regarding solving all of chess - the idea of computers determining that a particular position is obviously won (for example gigantic material advantage and no resources available to the opponent except hoping for a blunder from the winning player) and then skipping analyzing all the descendant positions from that position - is just that.
Its still a strong solution of chess. Not the most thorough.
GM finishes off another GM with a forced mate in five when he had mate in four.
There's no need to call that a 'weak' solution of that game.
Its a Strong Solution.
... I'm just a far more intelligent person than you, telling you that, if you like.
@Optimissed you're as intelligent as two short planks. Give it a rest.
Good post by @MARattigan.
Translation of Opto's post: Most people are more intelligent than him including most of the posters in this forum. And much more credible
Why does Opto constantly feel the need to tell falsehoods?
Nobody knows or cares but that Opto-behaviour is on display constantly.
Chess is not a game of perfect information. People who believe that it is are dumb. They may include good chess players but that doesn't alter it. Chess is an apparently unbreakable code and, hence, we don't have perfect information on it.
Chess can be regarded as finite when certain laws are brought in to limit repetitions etc. However, the finite quality of chess is nearer what we would think of as infinite, than finite.
Yes, chess is a game of perfect information because both players can see everything on the board at all times. There are no hidden moves or secret elements like in poker. This means every decision is based on complete knowledge of the position. But even with all the information available, chess is so complex that no one (not even computers) can calculate every possible move in a real game.
Dubrovnik got that one right.
Plus he was finally caused to say the word 'tablebases' but still doesn't get it about the tablebases. Perhaps won't
Opto knows that chess is a game of perfect information but wants to assert the reverse for some reason.
Can someone summarize what are we arguing here?
Yes,
Chess will never be solved, here's why....
Basically people who believe in magic, and fantasy. Believe that you can solve chess with Rules. And a search of the whole game tree of chess in not needed. Why, because of Magic AI....
So what are your arguments to why chess won't be solved? Also people's arguments seems reasonable since a chess game is finite.
My opinion... If you come into a thread youre new with just read or follow until you catch up.. Then you can participate. No need to ask people to repeat their arguments thats not the most appropriate entrance to make
Good post by @ Octopus there.
I'll add that I think VCY means well though. He has good intentions.
And that's what usually counts for the most.
Opto knows that chess is a game of perfect information.
When has he demonstrated credibility?
For example his claim 'AI makes internet searches impossible'
We're to think he believes his own nonsense there?
If he has 1% of the intelligence he claims - he knows that's garbage.
But he expects people to believe him?
Some of the kids do.
Optimissed is either just arguing for the sake of it or doesn't get what "perfect information" actually means. In chess, both players can see everything on the board at all times (as well as the prior moves), so there’s nothing hidden—unlike games like poker where you don’t know your opponent’s cards. Just because chess is insanely complex and no one can fully calculate it doesn’t mean it isn’t a perfect information game. If he actually knows this but still argues the opposite, then he’s either messing around or trying to sound deep for no reason. Same with the AI search claim—AI changes how results show up, but it obviously doesn’t make searches impossible. If he’s as smart as he says, he knows that’s not true, which makes it seem like he just likes stirring things up.
Opto knows that chess is a game of perfect information.
When has he demonstrated credibility?
For example his claim 'AI makes internet searches impossible'
We're to think he believes his own nonsense there?
If he has 1% of the intelligence he claims - he knows that's garbage.
But he expects people to believe him?
Some of the kids do.
Hand on a minute, that's unfair. It would make my IQ 1.69. I can't be only 1.69 player ... even you have an IQ of nearly 2.
Oh no, you're right—how could we possibly doubt the genius of someone who thinks AI makes internet searches impossible? Clearly, Google must have stopped working and nobody told us. And of course, chess isn't a game of perfect information because... uh... it's really hard? Totally checks out. And now we’re calculating IQs based on percentages of self-proclaimed intelligence—solid science right there. Lol.
You seem to be quite a good chess player but you're only 16 so you have no understanding of much. Keep up the good work though. We're on your side. After all, you have to live in this new world longer than me!
Ah, thank you, Optimissed, for bestowing upon me the knowledge that my 16-year-old brain is simply incapable of understanding much. Clearly, my ability to play chess well is just a happy accident, and any thoughts I have about AI, search engines, or, well, anything must be immediately disregarded.
But I appreciate your support—especially since you’ve already accepted that the world is doomed, but hey, I have to live in it, so best of luck to me! (Lol) Truly inspiring words of encouragement.
Optimissed is either just arguing for the sake of it or doesn't get what "perfect information" actually means. In chess, both players can see everything on the board at all times (as well as the prior moves), so there’s nothing hidden—unlike games like poker where you don’t know your opponent’s cards. Just because chess is insanely complex and no one can fully calculate it doesn’t mean it isn’t a perfect information game. If he actually knows this but still argues the opposite, then he’s either messing around or trying to sound deep for no reason. Same with the AI search claim—AI changes how results show up, but it obviously doesn’t make searches impossible. If he’s as smart as he says, he knows that’s not true, which makes it seem like he just likes stirring things up.
Would you like a discussion about it or are you just trying to show off? If you're trying to show off, you may have chosen the right audience, since the people here who will agree with you won't be all that bright. So if you like, let's have a conversation and you try to convince me that chess is perfect information. I'm very tired so it should level things up slightly.
Oh wow, what an incredibly generous offer—you’re tired, so now the discussion is fair? How fortunate for me! I can only imagine how impossible it would be to keep up if you were well-rested.
And of course, anyone who agrees with me must not be all that bright—because clearly, intelligence is measured by how much someone disagrees with you. Solid logic.
The first mistake you've made is that you've taken everything very literally and you've demonstrated that you're an extremely pedantic person with a rather inflexible mental attitude. That gives me an advantage. I know about you but you don't know a thing about me. But I could do with a sleep, so we're even.
Stop using logical fallacies on me, man
So why, in your opinon, is chess a game of perfect information??
Aha, so now we're finally pretending to have an actual discussion?
Alright then—as I have already stated, chess is a game of perfect information because both players can see the entire board at all times, as well as every move that has been played. There is no hidden information, no secret hands like in poker, and no random elements like dice rolls. Every position is fully visible, and all past moves are known to both players.
The first mistake you've made is that you've taken everything very literally and you've demonstrated that you're an extremely pedantic person with a rather inflexible mental attitude. That gives me an advantage. I know about you but you don't know a thing about me. But I could do with a sleep, so we're even.
Stop using logical fallacies on me, man
Logical fallacies? I'm pointing out that from your responses so far, I can tell that you have a high opinion of yourself, you're quite quick minded and have a sense of humour but you tend to be pedantic and literal-minded in the extreme.
That's not a fallacy. It's what I already know about you via how you have communicated.
So now we’ve moved on from actually discussing chess to an in-depth personality analysis of a person- fascinating! Clearly, the most important thing in a debate isn’t logic or evidence, but whether I fit neatly into the little character profile you’ve built in your head.
And of course, dismissing arguments as "pedantic" instead of addressing them isn’t dodging the point. I suppose next you’ll tell me another something that also proves I'm wrong?
So why, in your opinon, is chess a game of perfect information??
Aha, so now we're finally pretending to have an actual discussion?
YES
Alright then—as I have already stated, chess is a game of perfect information because both players can see the entire board at all times, as well as every move that has been played. There is no hidden information, no secret hands like in poker, and no random elements like dice rolls. Every position is fully visible, and all past moves are known to both players.
So you can use that information to see how to play the game and work out how to win or at least, avoid defeat. Since you can understand every way in which a move of yours can unfold in any continuation?
Yes, you can use that information to make the best possible moves, but that doesn’t mean you can perfectly calculate every outcome—chess is far too complex for that. Perfect information simply means that nothing is hidden from either player; it doesn’t mean the game is solved or that players can instantly see the best move at all times. The difficulty comes from the sheer number of possible positions, not from a lack of information.
Would you mind sticking to the conversation about chess being perfect information?
Now we're asking about being objective lol. Convenient.
I'm not dismissing your arguments because they are pedantic. More like pointing out that your criticisms have been based on a pedantic and mentally inflexible interpretation of things you obviously don't understand. You're out of your depth there, so best to stick to the topic of perfect information.
lol
I'm not dismissing your arguments because they are pedantic. More like pointing out that your criticisms have been based on a pedantic and mentally inflexible interpretation of things you obviously don't understand. You're out of your depth there, so best to stick to the topic of perfect information.
You definitely haven’t spent half this conversation dodging the real debate. I’ve already explained why chess is a perfect information game—both players have full visibility of the board and all past moves, with no hidden information or randomness. If you actually disagree, feel free to provide a real argument instead of just repeating that I “don’t understand.”
I'm not dismissing your arguments because they are pedantic. More like pointing out that your criticisms have been based on a pedantic and mentally inflexible interpretation of things you obviously don't understand. You're out of your depth there, so best to stick to the topic of perfect information.
lol
lol
lol again! lol!
I stuck mainly to other subjects when I was a wikipedia editor. Math, physics, other sciences, a little sports and various random things. Just a 4-figure number of edits on a 3-figure number of articles.