Oh sorry about reposting the same question.
Speaking of this, I have a good quote (I don't know who said it).
"The winner is the one who makes the second-to-last mistake."
I guess there's no worries about chess being refuted as I am sure that there has never ever EVER been a chess game played that didn't have mistakes in it.
(I'm just full of questions here.)
And if Fritz or something (some strong engine) were to be programmed to think 200 or so moves ahead, it would play 99% perfectly, right?
But it would take a year or so on a very fast processor per move.
I don't know about that, too tech stuff for me. :P 200 moves sounds like alot though (is there even a record of an actual game that long?), and it's not possible for the engines of today to go that deep that even if given a trillion years to calculate. But engines are getting better and better. Engines in the 60's and 70's were pathetic compared to today's. Maybe soon the engines will have the positional understanding of a grandmaster coupled with the monstrous calculating ability from the hardware.
Haha, computer engines in the 60's and 70's that's a good one, LOL! By the way, here's a funny little piece from 1973 Chess Life.
LOL
Hey Jr, I'm not a mathematician or anything, but I know for sure that the possibilities of moves and responses, and all the possible positions that can arise from a chess game are beyond reckoning. Even with the strongest computer on earth that has yet to be built you couldn't get to see 200 moves ahead. It's simple really: If you wanted to "solve" chess you would have to do it by force, But the strongest computers today also get some extra help. you can't program into them opening books of old games like usual or any other kind of "human knwoledge" that is thought to be right. Why? well because if you wanted to solve chess you have to analyze absolutely every possible move and not just the ones that we all agree are "sound".
That being said, don't worry about Chess being "solved" it just is not going to happen in this lifetime nor the next. oh... and by the way, someone actually took the trouble of calculating the aproximate number of possible chess positions and said that it's a theorical number bigger than the amount of atoms in the whole universe. Let's say this is just half true... It's still a LOT.
aaaand EVEN if chess got solved in like year 2561 (when we both have been dead for half a century) chess players can just switch to chess 960 that will take like 600% more time to get solved.
:-)
To get an idea of how difficult it is for even a computer to brute force every possible position, every possible game, and prove that there is a forced win for white on move one, lets take a look at tablebases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase
From the link : "An endgame tablebase is a computerized database that contains precalculated exhaustive analysis of a chess endgame position."
Computers use tablebases, and once a position is down to few enough pieces, the position is in the tablebase. From there, the computer always knows the best move, because every possible move, and every possible response, has been analyzed out to mate. Once the game is found in the tablebase, the compter will win (if possible) in the shortest time possible, even against best play. And if the computer is playing the losing side, it will play the move that takes the largest number of moves for the other side to force a mate, assuming there is a forced mate. If it gets the chance to make a move that leads to a forced draw, it will do it.
Essentially, it will always play perfectly from that point, because every possible line of play has already been analyzed.
The goal, of course, for the people who make tablebases is to make them bigger and bigger.
Now, another quote from the link :
Except for the scenario of a king and four pieces against a lone king (whose results are almost always obvious), the analysis of all endgames with up to six pieces (including the two kings) was completed in 2006. These tablebases are available for free download, and may also be queried using web interfaces (see the external links below). Research on seven-piece tablebases is ongoing and may be completed by the end of 2015
So, todays tablebases have all possible varients of endgames that have 6 pieces or less (minus king + four piece vs king variations.) And adding just one more piece, to reach a 7 piece tablebase, is taking about 10 years.
Adding another piece, to a 8 piece tablebase, will be even more complex - the more pieces you have, the more lines you have to consider. Therefore, even with faster computer speed, it's likely to take longer to go from 7 to 8 than it is taking to go from 6 to 7.
The game starts with 32 pieces.
On the one hand, it feels to me that with enough time and effort, enough computing power, enough storage space, etc, that it should be possible to "solve" chess, and have a huge database with every possible position. After all, you have a finite number of pieces, a finite board size, so there has to be a finite number of possible positions.
But on the other hand, the numbers we're talking about are huge.
If you want to read some math details about just how big, try this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number
The Shannon number, named after Claude Shannon, is an estimated lower bound on the game-tree complexity of chess.
According to that, we're talking about more possible chess positions (10123 than there are atoms in the universe (between 4×1079 and 1081).
To get an idea of how difficult it is for even a computer to brute force every possible position, every possible game, and prove that there is a forced win for white on move one, lets take a look at tablebases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase
From the link : "An endgame tablebase is a computerized database that contains precalculated exhaustive analysis of a chess endgame position."
Computers use tablebases, and once a position is down to few enough pieces, the position is in the tablebase. From there, the computer always knows the best move, because every possible move, and every possible response, has been analyzed out to mate. Once the game is found in the tablebase, the compter will win (if possible) in the shortest time possible, even against best play. And if the computer is playing the losing side, it will play the move that takes the largest number of moves for the other side to force a mate, assuming there is a forced mate. If it gets the chance to make a move that leads to a forced draw, it will do it.
Essentially, it will always play perfectly from that point, because every possible line of play has already been analyzed.
The goal, of course, for the people who make tablebases is to make them bigger and bigger.
Now, another quote from the link :
Except for the scenario of a king and four pieces against a lone king (whose results are almost always obvious), the analysis of all endgames with up to six pieces (including the two kings) was completed in 2006. These tablebases are available for free download, and may also be queried using web interfaces (see the external links below). Research on seven-piece tablebases is ongoing and may be completed by the end of 2015
So, todays tablebases have all possible varients of endgames that have 6 pieces or less (minus king + four piece vs king variations.) And adding just one more piece, to reach a 7 piece tablebase, is taking about 10 years.
Adding another piece, to a 8 piece tablebase, will be even more complex - the more pieces you have, the more lines you have to consider. Therefore, even with faster computer speed, it's likely to take longer to go from 7 to 8 than it is taking to go from 6 to 7.
The game starts with 32 pieces.
On the one hand, it feels to me that with enough time and effort, enough computing power, enough storage space, etc, that it should be possible to "solve" chess, and have a huge database with every possible position. After all, you have a finite number of pieces, a finite board size, so there has to be a finite number of possible positions.
But on the other hand, the numbers we're talking about are huge.
If you want to read some math details about just how big, try this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number
The Shannon number, named after Claude Shannon, is an estimated lower bound on the game-tree complexity of chess.
According to that, we're talking about more possible chess positions (10123 than there are atoms in the universe (between 4×1079 and 1081).
Nice one.
perfect play?? does this exist?
The Positional Considerations in a game of Chess are Infinitesimal! No Computer or Human could ever know all the Nuances of the Position that need to be Considered. Therefore with Correct Play the Game's Outcome is dependant on the Play in the Game and not dependant on the Initial Advantage of having the Tempo of first Move.
The Positional Considerations in a game of Chess are Infinitesimal! No Computer or Human could ever know all the Nuances of the Position that need to be Considered. Therefore with Correct Play the Game's Outcome is dependant on the Play in the Game and not dependant on the Initial Advantage of having the Tempo of first Move
Thanks chatgpt
How bout this one.
What if white has a forced win from move one? Perhaps there is a teeny teeny tiny advantage, the extra tempo, that, if PERFECTLY played, can lead to an expansion of the advantage and a win. Maybe one day they will create a super computer and you will try to play chess against it, it will play 1.e4 and say like "White mate in 200" or something (lol).
Here's my other thought. It seems that almost every opening ends up with "Slight white advantage". But really (considering both sides play perfectly) it is either a decisive advantage, a decisive disadvantage, or a hopeless draw. If you've got an advantage you can probably force a win from it with perfect play. But if there's no advantage, it's a draw. I think there is no such thing as a "slight advantage." That supercomputer I mentioned earlier (if it ever exists) will calculate either forced white mate, draw, or forced black mate.
So if white can force a small advantage out of any opening (even just 0.01), technically, if played flawlessly, it is a win. (And like I said before; if he can't, then it's not an advantage!!) So maybe one day chess will be refuted (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DON'T BE REFUTED!!!).
So here's where I need your feedback (if you even understood this :P): tell me an opening (nothing stupid) in which both sides play evenly and at the end of the opening either black has an advantage or it is dead even. Because I think that I read that white can force at least a miniscule advantage out of the opening. And technically that should lead to a win.
I feel like I'm on to something here lol.