...then...there will be peace on earth...
Sometimes I wonder...
Sort:
Jan 20, 2011
0
#3
There are already tablebases for games with 6 or less pieces.
Should only be a couple of years until they can do it with 32 pieces
Jan 21, 2011
0
#4
I have thought about that to. Here is my thoughts:
If a computer calculate all moves in chess / solve chess then...
...White winning is impossible, because black can play defensive for a draw.
...Draw is impossible, because there will be zubswang.
...Black will win, because of a forced zugswang from move 1.
My conclusion is that black will ALWAYS WIN. But i dont think that such a computer will ever be made. Of course im not sure about this, and im not saying this is fact, this is just what i think.
Jan 21, 2011
0
#5
pattrik wrote:
... if one day in the future there will be a chess engine powerful enough to calculate a forced win from the starting positon...
you can relax, there is no forced win in the starting position.
philidor_position wrote:
pattrik wrote:
... if one day in the future there will be a chess engine powerful enough to calculate a forced win from the starting positon...
you can relax, there is no forced win in the starting position.
Are you sure? I keep thinking this is, even though it probably involves quintillions of positions- but then chess is a game full of mysteries... I don't know.
Coopah wrote:
There are already tablebases for games with 6 or less pieces.
Should only be a couple of years until they can do it with 32 pieces
A couple of years. . .
Ok, chess has a state state-space complexity of about 10^47 power. (meaning the number of legal positions). It has a game tree complexity (meaning the possible number or legal games of chess) of around 10^127 power. To give you an idea of how FREAKING GIGANITC a number that is, many physicis estimate that if you take all of the matter in the entire observable universe and lumped it all together, you would have around 10^80th power atoms. Chess has 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times more possible legal games that the number of atoms in all the matter in every planet, star, solar system, and galaxy, everywhere, in all of existance.
We are more than a couple of years away from having a table base for a brute force solve of chess.
that means that one small atom in my fingernail, could be a whole universe to some smaller existence...
Sofademon wrote:
Coopah wrote:
There are already tablebases for games with 6 or less pieces.
Should only be a couple of years until they can do it with 32 pieces
A couple of years. . .
Ok, chess has a state state-space complexity of about 10^47 power. (meaning the number of legal positions). It has a game tree complexity (meaning the possible number or legal games of chess) of around 10^127 power. To give you an idea of how FREAKING GIGANITC a number that is, many physicis estimate that if you take all of the matter in the entire observable universe and lumped it all together, you would have around 10^80th power atoms. Chess has 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times more possible legal games that the number of atoms in all the matter in every planet, star, solar system, and galaxy, everywhere, in all of existance.
We are more than a couple of years away from having a table base for a brute force solve of chess.
... I agree...
Try replacing the "years" with eons P_P.
Guess we will have to wait and see =P
Hopefully this will be in my lifetime XD
smiley15 wrote:
Lol trysts. I don't see why a computer couldn't calculate one tempo playing as white to a 9 billion material advantage.
That sort of rating is approximately equal to #0 (Mate in 0) xD.
Sofademon wrote:
Coopah wrote:
There are already tablebases for games with 6 or less pieces.
Should only be a couple of years until they can do it with 32 pieces
A couple of years. . .
Ok, chess has a state state-space complexity of about 10^47 power. (meaning the number of legal positions). It has a game tree complexity (meaning the possible number or legal games of chess) of around 10^127 power. To give you an idea of how FREAKING GIGANITC a number that is, many physicis estimate that if you take all of the matter in the entire observable universe and lumped it all together, you would have around 10^80th power atoms. Chess has 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times more possible legal games that the number of atoms in all the matter in every planet, star, solar system, and galaxy, everywhere, in all of existance.
We are more than a couple of years away from having a table base for a brute force solve of chess.
Computers don't have to do it via brute force. Who knows, maybe computers can do it thinking the way humans think, except no blunders.
Jan 22, 2011
0
#14
ummm, perhaps stating the obvious, but what is forced after 1. e4? or e3, or any other. the hwole idea is ridiculous, no matter how many positions or atoms there are. move one kills the idea. (which philidor covered, but it seemed to be unnoticed).
planeden wrote:
ummm, perhaps stating the obvious, but what is forced after 1. e4? or e3, or any other. the hwole idea is ridiculous, no matter how many positions or atoms there are. move one kills the idea. (which philidor covered, but it seemed to be unnoticed).
It isn't too hard to program an opening book into a computer. After that, things are usually forced. In theory, a computer can beat anything if given unlimited resources, and today's supercomputers can test that.
Jan 22, 2011
0
#16
Windows-7_ wrote:
planeden wrote:
ummm, perhaps stating the obvious, but what is forced after 1. e4? or e3, or any other. the hwole idea is ridiculous, no matter how many positions or atoms there are. move one kills the idea. (which philidor covered, but it seemed to be unnoticed).
It isn't too hard to program an opening book into a computer. After that, things are usually forced. In theory, a computer can beat anything if given unlimited resources, and today's supercomputers can test that.
really? must be why i suck. i can barely force moves in the very end, much less after the opening.
perhaps we are working with a different definition of forced. i think of it literally where a forced move is you only have one legal option. some people say it more as only one reasonable option. i find it hard to believe that after the end of all (if not any) book openings, you can literally come up with a series of moves that leaves no legal alternatives but a checkmate.
of course, that would kind of make someone wonder about the ligitimacy of the "only reasonable move" option if it leads to a checkmate, but that is perhaps beyond the scope of this discussion, and my chess knowledge.
planeden wrote:
Windows-7_ wrote:
planeden wrote:
ummm, perhaps stating the obvious, but what is forced after 1. e4? or e3, or any other. the hwole idea is ridiculous, no matter how many positions or atoms there are. move one kills the idea. (which philidor covered, but it seemed to be unnoticed).
It isn't too hard to program an opening book into a computer. After that, things are usually forced. In theory, a computer can beat anything if given unlimited resources, and today's supercomputers can test that.
really? must be why i suck. i can barely force moves in the very end, much less after the opening.
perhaps we are working with a different definition of forced. i think of it literally where a forced move is you only have one legal option. some people say it more as only one reasonable option. i find it hard to believe that after the end of all (if not any) book openings, you can literally come up with a series of moves that leaves no legal alternatives but a checkmate.
of course, that would kind of make someone wonder about the ligitimacy of the "only reasonable move" option if it leads to a checkmate, but that is perhaps beyond the scope of this discussion, and my chess knowledge.
"only moves" are defined by me as those that don't give away any of your advantage or increase your opponent's, or otherwise the only legal move that doesn't lead to instant disaster or the only legal move.
Even if you say that a forced move is the only reasonable move, they only happen a few times per game. The reason humans can't beat supercomputers is because they are calculating monsters, and because they don't make tactical errors.
SimonSeirup wrote:
I have thought about that to. Here is my thoughts:
If a computer calculate all moves in chess / solve chess then...
...White winning is impossible, because black can play defensive for a draw.
...Draw is impossible, because there will be zubswang.
...Black will win, because of a forced zugswang from move 1.
My conclusion is that black will ALWAYS WIN. But i dont think that such a computer will ever be made. Of course im not sure about this, and im not saying this is fact, this is just what i think.
But white can play defensive too. I'm guessing it would be a draw.
Jan 22, 2011
0
#20
Windows-7_ wrote:
"only moves" are defined by me as those that don't give away any of your advantage or increase your opponent's, or otherwise the only legal move that doesn't lead to instant disaster or the only legal move.
still leaves the "forced mate" in quesiton, but it would come down to which best move leads to the longest mate. but at any rate, this is getting into the catagory of "computer puzzle, forced mate in 592" or whatever. those seem to be puzzle generated by computers, for computers, and people to go "huh, never would have thought of that". which is either a different mindset than mine to find that intersting, or artificial intellegence at work that just got tired of the mind-numbingly easy human level puzzles they used to have to solve before we let them have their own fun.
... if one day in the future there will be a chess engine powerful enough to calculate a forced win from the starting positon...