20088 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I would guess a rough estimation of a positions "complexity" might be related to the size of the decision tree for all possible moves forward - with the trees ending only in mate or stalemate. Blueemu's post of the starting position as "complex" is a good example.
For humans, this might also invove the number of "positional changes": exchanges or "significant" pawn or piece moves.
Not exactly true. For example, an end-game position with a lot of alternate forward moves would not be "complex" if humans looking at it could tell didn't matter much what alternate paths were taken as only one or two leads to a win.
the tree can end if there is an enduring material gain I think
Not exactly. Your adjective "enduring" implies look-ahead to some outcome. If you meant "significant material gain" - then yes unless the other player can mate quickly - which also implies look-ahead.
Just the idea of putting a "complexity" rating on a position sounds too complex for me.
I think in these kind of calculations you always define the max number of moves you're going to look ahead otherwise the computation will take too much time
I don't know : for example for Deep fritz this position (white moves) is defined as having a complexity of 9.8/10 ... What do you think?
How about just adding more squares, more pieces, pieces with variable move rules, and watch chess solutions run out to a near infinity that even supercomputers won't be able to calculate.
In mathematics a solution to a problem has to be less complex than the problem itself, otherwise the problem has no solution. This is not pie-in-sky theory there are mathematical problems where the solution is more complex than the problem therefore they are theoretically unsolvable.
Fermat's last theorem?
In mathematics a solution to a problem has to be less complex than the problem itself, otherwise the problem has no solution.
For example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat's_Last_Theorem
The current version of the proof is a couple of hundreds of pages, densely written, which only specialists of the domain can understand.
Does it mean the problem has no solution ?
Fermat's theorem was not a mathematical problem, it was a mathematical conjecture (a unproven statement).
example: "there are no blond girls with brown eyes." Well to prove that to be true I may have to travel around the world and look at sample all blond the girls. In math of course they had to use complex branches of geometry, ellptical functions etc.etc.
Example: Instead of looking for blond girls with blue eyes, let as look for the genes that make brown eyes and see if that gene can coexist with the gene for blond hair. If they can, then there must be a blond girl with bbrown eyes somewhere in the world.
So it was a proof of a statement not a solution to a specific problem. Capisce?
1- How to turn a conjecture into a problem : where the conjecture states "A", the problem is "is A true ?".
2- Logical error in your reasoning. The fact that there exists a gene that allows something does not mean that this something exists (in this case, some genetic characters). Other example of the same flaw : there are enough fish in the Scottish Loch to feed a dinosaur, thus the existence of the Loch Ness monster is possible, thus it exists -> hmm, no.
3- Please define a mathematical "problem" then. I don't get your subtle distinction. I think the issue arises from the word "mathematical", but not sure.
Yeah, this position is pretty complex. I would guess that the reason fritz still assigns it a very high hotness rating is because the hotness meter pays no attention to wether the game is nearly over or not. Perhaps that is what the Mate-O-Meter is for.
As a puzzle this position would have a score of less than 1000 I think
7/30/2016 - Saric - Malisauskas, European Team Championship 20
by neelvanpersie a few minutes ago
7/30/2016 - Sometimes 2 bishops are better than queen + rook
by GuessWhoIAm 2 minutes ago
My Blitz match against GM Joey
by Ashvapathi 2 minutes ago
What should I play against d4?
by pestebalcanica 7 minutes ago
Sita's First Checkmate
by Ashvapathi 9 minutes ago
2007 is just a number....
by misterbasic 9 minutes ago
Invent your own chess variant.
by ReddyJ 11 minutes ago
Who is your favorite chess author?
by Karpark 12 minutes ago
Account closed... Inactive... RED CROSS???
by Martin_Stahl 18 minutes ago
Chess Games in TV Show Mr. Robot
by Uhohspaghettio1 19 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!