Better dance and wait instead of calling someone's opinion "delusional thinking"
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
why did the chicken cross the basketball court ?
I dont know, ask chicken
https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/analogy-and-the-roots-of-creative-intelligence/
"consider whether artificial intelligence will eventually produce authentic creative work. Do you think AI has the potential to reach or exceed human analogical ability?
Recent advances in AI, particularly large language models (LLMs), have already created systems that can solve novel analogy problems at roughly the same level as college students. As the cognitive scientist Tom Griffiths has pointed out, humans operate under fundamental limits of time, computation, and communication. We are mortal beings, granted only finite time to learn anything. The human brain is complex and powerful, but we each are allotted just one of them, so our computational capacity is bounded. And we have no way to directly transfer the contents of our brain to that of anyone else — our shared knowledge has to pass through the bottleneck of our limited communication ability.
Can AI Write Authentic Poetry?
In contrast, the “lifespan” of an AI program is indefinitely long, during which the program can be revised through learning. Meanwhile, computing power is continually increasing as engineers build faster machines with greater memory and processing capacity. Programs can easily be copied from one machine to another, and huge networks of computers can be put to work on a shared problem. It is certainly possible that AI will create new forms of superhuman intelligence.
But to answer your question, while AI programs can generate novel and useful products, contributing to creativity, so far, these systems lack full autonomy. Although they can solve analogies posed to them, the initial analogical spark — noticing spontaneously that a certain known analog might illuminate a new problem in a way that advances knowledge — has yet to be struck by an AI.
Particularly in the case of artistic creativity, AI faces what may well be an insurmountable limit. In most forms of art — perhaps most obviously music and lyric poetry — the essential point is for the creator to convey an emotional experience to their audience through the medium of their artistic creation"
https://www.perplexity.ai/page/anthropic-ceo-floats-ai-quit-b-BotCYKfST6GePBfE_Psp6w
Not only AI could never be able to solve chess at all or "artistically " it might never want to try to solve chess at all either given that it d rudimentary consciousness
Mar 14, 2025
0
#15747
playerafar wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Elroch wrote:
playerafar wrote:
...
You can link positions by addiing to the material and varying where the additional material is placed (not moved). Would work much better with won positions than with drawn positions.
I am not sure how useful this is. Firstly, there are many ways it could go wrong, limiting the number of positions added. Secondly the fraction of total positions involved would likely be tiny.
...
With @playerafar's proposed implementation - not useful at all. He proposes only counting the number of positions after his proposed piece additions without in any way processing the positions themselves.
He doesn't propose doing anything with the count when he's found it, so I would say the only thing that could go wrong is the counting process ties up the machine and prevents useful work.
MARattigan dead wrong again.
I made it clear the positions would have to be checked regarding stalemates.
B.
In all the solved tablebase positions (in other words all 7-piece or fewer legal chess positions) that have been found to be wins for white or for black - Each won position has a further algorithm run on it - where adding more pieces to the winning side in all ways that do not interfere with that side's win - is considered - but with no further evaluation - they are simply counted and added and a number of such is determined.A huge amount of work could then be saved.
Can you highlight where you made it clear?
If you're checking an added piece doesn't interfere with that side's mates you would have to check that the moves in every line of at least one forced mate half tree could be either legally made or some earlier move has produced mate before the line completes and that no extra moves would be made available to the losing side. That would naturally involve checking for stalemates and doesn't need to be made clear.
You do nothing with the positions so produced except count them. You do nothing in particular with the count once you've calculated it.
Then you claim your number would save a huge amount of work but you don't say how. It would seem to just make a huge amount of work rather than saving any as you've described your idea.
If we're adding say a white knight to this position:
Mate in 549
The average number of Black moves on a turn in the sequence shown is around 31. That would give you well over 10^800 chains to check with around 550 moves per chain (it's Lomonosov DTM moves).
Then you have a number (almost certainly 0 - you can pretty well discount any squares that a white piece lands on in any of the chains for a start). Then you do nothing with it. Fantastic.
Its got to be a very gigantic number of positions that are derived from positions that are already establised as wins because of lopsided material advantage.
Well are you extending tablebases or not? If you're just extending positions misevaluated on the grounds of a large material mismatch you're just propagating the misevaluations backwards.
Consider for a minute the kind of numbers that would go with each root position.
Enormous combinations of different numbers and types of pieces added to up to 57 squares in each root position.
----------------------------
Just with 'lone king' alone (pun intended) you've isolated a number whose first upper bound is
8^64 in contrast to the 13^64 total previous upper bound.
But that 8^64 can be cut down further in the way that the 13^64 was cut down by John Tromp to x 10^44.
When that number is then arrived at - it can be compared to the number of won positions with lone king within the 7 piece tablebase.
All of that could probably be done in less than an afternoon with the supercomputers.
And the number of lone king positions within all the finsihed tablebases so far - is probably already known.
-----------------------
Its like we're not supposed to discuss this?
I didn't 'propose' what the weather should be like either when I presented these ideas.
But you don't discuss it, you just take a huff instead of admitting you got it wrong and going back to the drawing board.
------------------------------
Engineer shows design to project leader ... who then says 'where's the budget plan with this?'
engineer responds: 'that's your department.'
Project leader scowls and then come to his senses:
'OK I get it. They did an alternative solution for checkers. You're talking about initial projects for a similiar idea to be applied to chess. Right?'
Reply: 'Not quite. Our tablebase projects for 7 pieces and fewer didn't just 'solve'.
It also catalogued. You see? The idea wasn't to worry about what you'd do later.
If people had always worried about what was to be done with an idea ...
Project leader: 'Of course. Don't rub it in. That was my bad. But do you have a 'next'?'
---------------------------
Reply: 'Yes. And that's for you and me to discuss the idea a bit more before proceeding.''
PL: 'How?'
'Well you see - first the theory. If you've got established won positions that also include the plus of at least a rook material advantage (very easy for the computer to filter because the tablebases have done a lot of that anyway and you're then doing the very short search to determine there's no inevitable stalemate by adding material to the winning side - (a quintillionth of a second for each position of addition) then can you assign the position as a win without having to go through all its iterations from there?
What kind of computer are you envisaging that will check 10^800 chains of 550 moves in a quintillionth of a second? And stalemate would be the least of the things it has to check for.
PL: I see your point. The winning side could still blow the win but the point is the strategy is there for the player to force the win for himself as in the first two situations of game theory.
--------------------------------------------------------
Eng. 'Exactly! And all that with no Jargon!'
PL: Neat. And then next?
Eng.: 'Then we get the totals - for each type: starting with lone king against material of a rook or more - that leads to us getting a fraction for all such won positions.'
PL: 'I get it. But won't you run into a snag as you add more and more pieces to that rook?
And what about adding to lone king too? How many can you add to him for this?
Eng: 'That's part of the point too. We both discuss it - and also find out.'
PL: Exactly what happens in research. I get it I get it. Don't know why I didn't see all that instantly. Its so obvious.
@Elroch earlier proposed we should ban fantasy as spam. I agree.
--------------------------------
AVRO-1938 wrote:
@Elroch earlier proposed we should ban fantasy as spam. I agree.
Then what could you ever post. As all your posts are nothing but Fairytale time. About claiming to be able to solve chess, when the game is not possible to solve. // Chess can be solved theorectically, it is a finite amount of positions. 10^132 positions to you is alot but its not unlimited.
The act of lying about chess being solvable and dedicating years to spreading this falsehood online likely stems from a complex interplay of mental issues—delusion, compulsive lying, attention-seeking, obsession, or identity struggles. Each possibility points to an underlying pain or need: for significance, control, connection, or relief from internal chaos. While the specific diagnosis remains speculative without clinical insight, the behavior underscores how the human mind, under distress, can latch onto extraordinary narratives to navigate an ordinary world. Chess, in its unsolvable grandeur, becomes not just a game but a canvas for projecting these psychological battles—an enigma the liar, ironically, cannot solve within themselves.
Chess can be theorectically solved. So unless humanity keeps fighting each other in wars, we will develop a computer powerful enough to solve 10^132 positions.
I have a feeling it's much higher than 10^132. Maybe 10^200 or 10^300, at least for possible games.
AVRO-1938 wrote:
Except the laws of physics prevent such a large calculation of 10^132. As the calculation would take more energy then the universe contains.
Just for fun I did the calculation of the power needed to solve chess. With perfect 100% efficiency.
Brute-forcing the chess game tree with 10^120 nodes (a lower bound estimate) at 10^-9 joules/node takes 10^111 joules. Far exceeding the universe’s power limit of 10^69–10^70 joules.
Stockfish 16 can calculate up to 40 million positions a second. So to solve 10^132 it would take about 7.92 followed by 116 more zeros years. So its possible.
We can already make a conclusion e4 is better than d4, because the queen and the bishop is very active which makes it the best move.
Mar 14, 2025
0
#15751
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
I have a feeling it's much higher than 10^132. Maybe 10^200 or 10^300, at least for possible games.
He reads Grok.
Number of games under basic rules is infinite.
Best lower bound so far, I believe, for competition rules is > 10^29241.
I don't think @AVRO-1938 knows the difference.
AVRO-1938 wrote:
Just FYI, my computer can run Stockfish over 100 million nodes a second.
But again you ignore the fact that calculating 10^120 nodes or more. Would take more energy then the universe contains. And you ignore the fact that Stockfish in not able to solve chess period.
Brute-forcing the chess game tree with 10^120 nodes (a lower bound estimate) at 10^-9 joules/node takes 10^111 joules. Far exceeding the universe’s power limit of 10^69–10^70 joules.
10^120 positions, well if you count illegal positions. In fact there are are only 10^43 legal positions. Still the energy it would take is massive, but its possible.
We are debating will chess be solved or is chess solvable, not is chess solved yet.
By knowing the amount of positions are there in chess, chess isn't infinite so its a solvable game.
Quantum computing could solve chess is like 4 seconds
Mar 14, 2025
0
#15757
that didnt last long lmfao. important to note that avro was completely ignoring the existence of invariants. Outright claiming u need the game tree to know if a position is won, loss, or drawn is incorrect.
Mar 14, 2025
0
#15758
VerifiedChessYarshe wrote:
AVRO-1938 wrote:
Just FYI, my computer can run Stockfish over 100 million nodes a second.
But again you ignore the fact that calculating 10^120 nodes or more. Would take more energy then the universe contains. And you ignore the fact that Stockfish in not able to solve chess period.
Brute-forcing the chess game tree with 10^120 nodes (a lower bound estimate) at 10^-9 joules/node takes 10^111 joules. Far exceeding the universe’s power limit of 10^69–10^70 joules.
10^120 positions, well if you count illegal positions. In fact there are are only 10^43 legal positions. Still the energy it would take is massive, but its possible.
There is in fact a difference between positions and games.
10^120 was an estimate by Shannon of the number of games of the type likely to be played by strong players at the time (average length 40 moves, average moves available on each turn 30, so 30^40≈10^120). Shannon never said it was anywhere near the possible number of games.
The actual number of possible games under FIDE basic and competition rules I've just described above.
He also estimated the number of positions under current basic rules (which were not current at the time) as 10^43, but that is low; best estimate by Tromp is 4.8x10^44 but ,"position" is rather ambiguous. If position is taken to be synonymous with "game state" the number of positions under competition rules is vastly vastly higher and I don't think anyone has attempted to estimate it.
Gronk seems to be unaware that there are even two different sets of standard chess rules, thinks Shannon's figure of 10^120 is an estimate of the total number of chess games and hasn't heard of Tromp, so he feeds duff figures to @AVRO-1938 and @AVRO-1938 is gullible enough to believe them.
shechs wrote:
Quantum computing could solve chess is like 4 seconds
Quantum computing can't even play chess yet, never mind solve it.
The future will show