On a Serious Note (just this once)

Sort:
savy_swede
Sharukin wrote: Being finite does not guarantee solvability. There are many finite problems that are known to have no solution.

exactly, in checkers you are forced to make captures and keep moving the checkers forward. In chess you could maneuver endlessly without captures.

Yourself

Isn't there that 50 move rule that keeps you from doing that?

 

If your state includes the number of moves since a capture or pawn movement, then chess can be represented as a directed graph with no cycles where each node represents the state of a game.  It would contain terminal nodes which represent end game states (checkmate, stalemate, draws by repetition, and that 50 move thing).  To solve chess you must determine for each node in the graph the best node to move to next (the best being the one that most quickly reaches the most favorable terminal node accessible from the current node).  Of course the size of this graph is truly ludicrous.  In order to solve it, we must create a computer that can go right to ludicrous speed since light speed is too slow.


NinjaBear

"Tune in next time for another Episode of Cheater_1 on Chess.com. How will he raise the ire of the chess.com community this time? Don't miss the exciting, controverisal and ever-edgy Cheater_1 channel. Play. Learn. Share. Flame! " -Rael

 

BAHAHAHWHWHAHAA!!! Nice

 

btw, I like controversial stuff.

Chessroshi
If N=NP, then do I still have to let you capture my queen that I hung on move 12?
Chessroshi
We should make like Chess.com Forum mag. It could be a section of forums that would be like a tabloid section of forums. We could have other post-aholics like Bat-girl and Tonightonly do columns too.
EscherehcsE
AlbusDumbledore6 wrote:

I have initiated the most godly bump ever, I have bumped a thread from 2008

BUMP

You deserve a bumping trophy; Does the site offer one?

jgnLpaShalat

happy.png