True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides
Sort:
Cool
Eden013 wrote:
I have never seen such a useless forum...you have one guy that repeats the same damn thing 3000 times and others who are pointing flaws in his arguments (if he even has any) in which he ignores and proceeds to repeat the same generic response. I already know exactly what this dude's gonna say.
Maybe. But he could surprise you. You might think he would say he's 99.999% sure chess is a draw. When he might actually say he's 99.9999% sure. Because in the first instance there is only 1500 pounds of evidence. But in the latter there is a ton. But one thing we all have in common, no matter how sure we are, none of us know.
The last time I saw such fervent belief from someone was a friendly well dressed couple who came knocking on my door and wanted to talk about all sorts of non chess related things.
Aug 16, 2020
0
#3343
Eden013 wrote:
I have never seen such a useless forum...you have one guy that repeats the same damn thing 3000 times and others who are pointing flaws in his arguments (if he even has any) in which he ignores and proceeds to repeat the same generic response. I already know exactly what this dude's gonna say.
However, you flipped it.
Aug 16, 2020
0
#3344
pfren wrote:
...
Chess will never be mathematically solved, as the universe does not have enough atoms to store the data of the solution.
I think you're assuming an EGTB type solution is the only possible mathematical solution.
I think I could write a routine in 1 KB for example that would do the same job as the 450 KB KBBK Nalimov EGTB (faster).
The Nalimov EGTBs in any case are overkill. You have completely solved (Basic Rules) chess if you can produce a routine that guarantees a win from any winning position. It doesn't have to be in the minimum number of moves and it doesn't need to produce more than one move for a given position.
A chess beginner with an aptitude for programming could probably produce a routine to replace the 14 KB KRK Nalimov EGTB in less than a couple of hundred bytes if you drop that overkill. I could also replace the 1 MB + KBNK EGTB in around 1 KB with the same proviso.
Such EGTB replacement routines are no doubt possible for all generic endgames (including all 32 pieces). Moreover I think the ratio of the size of such routines as a fraction of the corresponding EGTB size would probably exponentially decrease with EGTB size.
The problem is, of course, that the larger the EGTB size, the harder is the analysis for such replacement routines, but this is not the same as saying that such routines do not exist.
If storage capacities continue to grow at their historical rate, I wouldn't be surprised if in a decade or two, a complete solution to chess would fit on the average person's mobile. I would be surprised if it actually did.
MARattigan wrote:
pfren wrote:
...
Chess will never be mathematically solved, as the universe does not have enough atoms to store the data of the solution.
I think you're assuming an EGTB type solution is the only possible mathematical solution.
I think I could write a routine in 1 KB for example that would do the same job as the 450 KB KBBK Nalimov EGTB (faster).
The Nalimov EGTBs in any case are overkill. You have completely solved (Basic Rules) chess if you can produce a routine that guarantees a win from any winning position. It doesn't have to be in the minimum number of moves and it doesn't need to produce more than one move for a given position.
A chess beginner with an aptitude for programming could probably produce a routine to replace the 14 KB KRK Nalimov EGTB in less than a couple of hundred bytes if you drop that overkill. I could also replace the 1 MB + KBNK EGTB in around 1 KB with the same proviso.
Such EGTB replacement routines are no doubt possible for all generic endgames (including all 32 pieces). Moreover I think the ratio of the size of such routines as a fraction of the corresponding EGTB size would probably exponentially decrease with EGTB size.
The problem is, of course, that the larger the EGTB size, the harder is the analysis for such replacement routines, but this is not the same as saying that such routines do not exist.
If storage capacities continue to grow at their historical rate, I wouldn't be surprised if in a decade or two, a complete solution to chess would fit on the average person's mobile. I would be surprised if it actually did.
Since there is currently a solution for every 6 (or maybe 7) piece game of chess do you know if every "starting" 6 piece game is a draw? For example both sides have king, pawn, and bishop in their original positions.
Aug 16, 2020
0
#3346
lfPatriotGames wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
pfren wrote:
...
Chess will never be mathematically solved, as the universe does not have enough atoms to store the data of the solution.
I think you're assuming an EGTB type solution is the only possible mathematical solution.
I think I could write a routine in 1 KB for example that would do the same job as the 450 KB KBBK Nalimov EGTB (faster).
The Nalimov EGTBs in any case are overkill. You have completely solved (Basic Rules) chess if you can produce a routine that guarantees a win from any winning position. It doesn't have to be in the minimum number of moves and it doesn't need to produce more than one move for a given position.
A chess beginner with an aptitude for programming could probably produce a routine to replace the 14 KB KRK Nalimov EGTB in less than a couple of hundred bytes if you drop that overkill. I could also replace the 1 MB + KBNK EGTB in around 1 KB with the same proviso.
Such EGTB replacement routines are no doubt possible for all generic endgames (including all 32 pieces). Moreover I think the ratio of the size of such routines as a fraction of the corresponding EGTB size would probably exponentially decrease with EGTB size.
The problem is, of course, that the larger the EGTB size, the harder is the analysis for such replacement routines, but this is not the same as saying that such routines do not exist.
If storage capacities continue to grow at their historical rate, I wouldn't be surprised if in a decade or two, a complete solution to chess would fit on the average person's mobile. I would be surprised if it actually did.
Since there is currently a solution for every 6 (or maybe 7) piece game of chess do you know if every "starting" 6 piece game is a draw? For example both sides have king, pawn, and bishop in their original positions.
Of course not.
I wasn't thinking of anything that obvious. I was thinking more like
where going first could be an advantage.
MARattigan schreef:
pfren wrote:
...
Chess will never be mathematically solved, as the universe does not have enough atoms to store the data of the solution.
I think you're assuming an EGTB type solution is the only possible mathematical solution.
I think I could write a routine in 1 KB for example that would do the same job as the 450 KB KBBK Nalimov EGTB (faster).
The Nalimov EGTBs in any case are overkill. You have completely solved (Basic Rules) chess if you can produce a routine that guarantees a win from any winning position. It doesn't have to be in the minimum number of moves and it doesn't need to produce more than one move for a given position.
A chess beginner with an aptitude for programming could probably produce a routine to replace the 14 KB KRK Nalimov EGTB in less than a couple of hundred bytes if you drop that overkill. I could also replace the 1 MB + KBNK EGTB in around 1 KB with the same proviso.
Such EGTB replacement routines are no doubt possible for all generic endgames (including all 32 pieces). Moreover I think the ratio of the size of such routines as a fraction of the corresponding EGTB size would probably exponentially decrease with EGTB size.
The problem is, of course, that the larger the EGTB size, the harder is the analysis for such replacement routines, but this is not the same as saying that such routines do not exist.
If storage capacities continue to grow at their historical rate, I wouldn't be surprised if in a decade or two, a complete solution to chess would fit on the average person's mobile. I would be surprised if it actually did.
A routine to solve a position with a few pieces on the board is not that interesting, because we already have tablebases for that. It gets tricky when there are 8 or more pieces on the board and I don't think that you can find some routine which solves such positions, because chess is too complex. The most sensible approach would be to extend the existing tablebases to more pieces, but then it would take forever to reach the starting position.
Aug 16, 2020
0
#3349
lfPatriotGames wrote:
I wasn't thinking of anything that obvious. I was thinking more like
where going first could be an advantage.
But, you said “every”.
Your position is a draw with best play. Neither player can prevent the loss of the pawn. Mate cannot be forced without promoting the pawn.
Ziryab wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
I wasn't thinking of anything that obvious. I was thinking more like
where going first could be an advantage.
But, you said “every”.
Your position is a draw with best play. Neither player can prevent the loss of the pawn. Mate cannot be forced without promoting the pawn.
Yes, I said every. I was thinking of all the possibilities where there isn't an obvious first move like your example. I was just wondering if every not obvious position is a draw.
Aug 16, 2020
0
#3351
lfPatriotGames wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
pfren wrote:
...
Chess will never be mathematically solved, as the universe does not have enough atoms to store the data of the solution.
I think you're assuming an EGTB type solution is the only possible mathematical solution.
I think I could write a routine in 1 KB for example that would do the same job as the 450 KB KBBK Nalimov EGTB (faster).
The Nalimov EGTBs in any case are overkill. You have completely solved (Basic Rules) chess if you can produce a routine that guarantees a win from any winning position. It doesn't have to be in the minimum number of moves and it doesn't need to produce more than one move for a given position.
A chess beginner with an aptitude for programming could probably produce a routine to replace the 14 KB KRK Nalimov EGTB in less than a couple of hundred bytes if you drop that overkill. I could also replace the 1 MB + KBNK EGTB in around 1 KB with the same proviso.
Such EGTB replacement routines are no doubt possible for all generic endgames (including all 32 pieces). Moreover I think the ratio of the size of such routines as a fraction of the corresponding EGTB size would probably exponentially decrease with EGTB size.
The problem is, of course, that the larger the EGTB size, the harder is the analysis for such replacement routines, but this is not the same as saying that such routines do not exist.
If storage capacities continue to grow at their historical rate, I wouldn't be surprised if in a decade or two, a complete solution to chess would fit on the average person's mobile. I would be surprised if it actually did.
Since there is currently a solution for every 6 (or maybe 7) piece game of chess do you know if every "starting" 6 piece game is a draw? For example both sides have king, pawn, and bishop in their original positions.
The answer is yes (I know) and no (they're not).
I'd guess that all KBPKBP with the pieces on their starting positions are drawn, but I don't have software to check this out with the EGTBs (I can only do this with the 3-4-5 man Nalimov EGTBs at the moment). There are a limited number so it would be feasible, if tedious, to check this out with an online EGTB.
However this is obviously not a draw.
There are other slightly less trivial examples.
lfPatriotGames schreef:
I wasn't thinking of anything that obvious. I was thinking more like
where going first could be an advantage.
Aug 16, 2020
0
#3353
Numquam wrote:
MARattigan schreef:
pfren wrote:
...
Chess will never be mathematically solved, as the universe does not have enough atoms to store the data of the solution.
I think you're assuming an EGTB type solution is the only possible mathematical solution.
I think I could write a routine in 1 KB for example that would do the same job as the 450 KB KBBK Nalimov EGTB (faster).
The Nalimov EGTBs in any case are overkill. You have completely solved (Basic Rules) chess if you can produce a routine that guarantees a win from any winning position. It doesn't have to be in the minimum number of moves and it doesn't need to produce more than one move for a given position.
A chess beginner with an aptitude for programming could probably produce a routine to replace the 14 KB KRK Nalimov EGTB in less than a couple of hundred bytes if you drop that overkill. I could also replace the 1 MB + KBNK EGTB in around 1 KB with the same proviso.
Such EGTB replacement routines are no doubt possible for all generic endgames (including all 32 pieces). Moreover I think the ratio of the size of such routines as a fraction of the corresponding EGTB size would probably exponentially decrease with EGTB size.
The problem is, of course, that the larger the EGTB size, the harder is the analysis for such replacement routines, but this is not the same as saying that such routines do not exist.
If storage capacities continue to grow at their historical rate, I wouldn't be surprised if in a decade or two, a complete solution to chess would fit on the average person's mobile. I would be surprised if it actually did.
A routine to solve a position with a few pieces on the board is not that interesting, because we already have tablebases for that. It gets tricky when there are 8 or more pieces on the board and I don't think that you can find some routine which solves such positions, because chess is too complex. The most sensible approach would be to extend the existing tablebases to more pieces, but then it would take forever to reach the starting position.
But then @pfren could be right (though I haven't actually counted the atoms in the universe) which would probably make it not the most sensible approach.
Certainly the routines I mentioned (translated into English) would be a lot more useful to the average player in a game, than attempting to memorise a few thousand million positions and a corresponding distance to mate for each position. It depends what you class as interesting.
I think I could manage some routines for 8 or more pieces by the way, e.g. KBBBKBBB (xxx-xxx) or KPPPPPPK. My argument was that they probably exist whether or not they're easy to analyse and might constitute a solution that would feasibly fit in computer storage.
Aug 16, 2020
0
#3354
Numquam wrote:
lfPatriotGames schreef:
I wasn't thinking of anything that obvious. I was thinking more like
where going first could be an advantage.
Well, there are no doubt many such positions, but I don't think so many interesting ones in the currently available EGTBs which go up to 7 men but that includes the pieces on both sides and the 7 man EGTBs are useless if you're looking for symmetrical "starting" positions.
This is a bit more complicated.
PATRIOT We can only go by what you actually post--not something that you might have intended to post?
It is also quite true and rather obvious that 6 or 7 piece EGTBs have only a small relevance to 32 piece EGTBs?
When I was a kid I determined how to draw in some 4 piece EGTBs with my lone king vs king and protected bishop and protected pawn.
Pieces moved differently those days, ponz...
Aug 16, 2020
0
#3358
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
I wasn't thinking of anything that obvious. I was thinking more like
where going first could be an advantage.
But, you said “every”.
Your position is a draw with best play. Neither player can prevent the loss of the pawn. Mate cannot be forced without promoting the pawn.
Yes, I said every. I was thinking of all the possibilities where there isn't an obvious first move like your example. I was just wondering if every not obvious position is a draw.
Your example was as obviously a draw as mine was an obvious win. The fundamental difference is the level of chess skill needed to see what is obvious.
But then (pfren) could be right (though I haven't actually counted the atoms in the universe) which would probably make it not the most sensible approach.
luv, he has spent alotta time hovered over a checkers board as the game much-much better suits him. and for chess to be 'solved' (he said it not me) ?...it will require STEM. and yes the M stands for arithMetic. and s/t/e. dont listen to old men. theyve spent a lifetme rarely leading. their reality is theyve been obedient followers or have been told to get outta the way. and as theyve 'advanced' in greytones ?...theyre getting in the way. yee !
Thee_Ghostess_Lola έγραψε:
But then (pfren) could be right (though I haven't actually counted the atoms in the universe) which would probably make it not the most sensible approach.
luv, he's has spent alotta time hovered over a checkers board as the game much-much better suits him. and for chess to be 'solved' (he said it not me) ?...it will require STEM. and yes the M stands for arithMetic. and s/t/e. dont listen to old men. theyve spent a lifetme rarely leading. their reality is theyve been obedient followers or have been told to get outta the way. and as theyve 'advanced' in greytone ?...theyre getting in the way. yee !
Sweetie, we were discussing about an evaluation of the necessary storage space in relation to Shannon's number. Not about the storage of the good moves you could possibly play in your life- in that case a single atom would be more than enough.