I think Magnus Carlsen is going to solve it in the next WC match.
True or false? Chess will never be solved! why?
Sort:
Moses2792796 wrote:
This is pure speculation.
Around here?! Why, I won't hear of it!
Casual_Joe wrote:
Moses2792796 wrote:
Casual_Joe wrote:.........I'm not saying it'll be solved soon, but eventually, unless the Second Coming occurs first!
wouldn't that make it the 1st coming?
Feb 18, 2013
0
#25
Rnewms wrote:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134672-harvard-cracks-dna-storage-crams-700-terabytes-of-data-into-a-single-gram
Data storage is not the problem.
So! A computer with a DNA drive will be able to store the data, if only computers can find the resources the solve it. This is big news!
So until that moment comes along, I guess I just don my meteorite helmet and wait:
Moses2792796 wrote:
Seraphimity wrote:
Moses2792796 wrote:
@Seraphimity, this is simply not true. First of all, until chess is solved there is no way of proving beyond any doubt whether chess is a win for white or a draw, however almost all strong players believe that a game without any mistakes will result in a draw.
I just think that when chess is solved even if its a 150 years from now, that for the most part yes it is a draw.. I can't help but feel that there will be this one anamolistic opening sequence where thru a quirk of pawn advancement and promotion or a rapid exchange of minor pieces leaving a won endgame. I don't believe any and all opens for white will yield a win. I'm saying there is a single golden sequence that will yield an unstopable win. It just seems to be the way of the universe,, if the rule is a draw,, then there will be that one exception
This is pure speculation. Many solved games have been shown to be drawn with perfect play, why do you feel this would/could not be the case with chess?
Many are drawn but not all so this is not a good absolute agruement. Chess has millions of possible moves and positions and most can be drawn or easlily (for GM's) stalemated. For me, its all the nuances to the piece's. From pawn promotion to the way knights and rooks don't always play well to the way good material can sometimes just be on bad squares. Then factor in the forced aspect surrounding the king and tempi.
Simply put I'm of the mind that one day some opening series will be discovered that will lead to a position where after a series of forced exchanges a position will arise where something like a pawn will be in position that cannot be stopped from promotion, or force quite unfavorable material losses thus heavily swaying the game to a forced mate. With all the millions of possible combinations I'm saying their is one with say 17 pieces left on the board that is a forced win and that their is a specific opening that will yeild this position. This positional dynamic will be named, banned from tournament play and the person who discovers this will make millions be in all the magazines and reach immortality in chess form not to mention the patents on the software he used to find this golden sequence. A few, but only a few minor varients will then be discovered which also reach this forced mate from roughly the same position given the earlier mentioned 17 piece postion. The bulk of White's main line's will still be drawn under perfect play but chess will have changed by now as computers will know many more won endgames with as many 15 pieces left on the board, chess will fall out of favor for the sheer volume's of memorization required, but it wont matter because by then we will have neural implants and of course a chimp will born who loves waffles has a pet parrot and somehow plays chess with the combinational purity of Fischer and will amaze the world by beating a human Gm..
Feb 18, 2013
0
#28
I will be amazed when humans solve the problem of distinguishing plurals from possessives, and solve the problem of teaching this solution to the young.
Ziryab wrote:
I will be amazed when humans solve the problem of distinguishing plurals from possessives, and solve the problem of teaching this solution to the young.
Pales next to the age-old question: Is the plural of Attorney General "Attorney generals" or "Attorneys general"?
If it was to be solved (and that every match could result into a draw) then no more tournaments or matches. Rich uneducated chess players who make a living out of chess would become extremely poor :-) Lol haha
I don't think "solving" chess with computers would have any real effect on tournaments. The solution would still be a tree about as big as chess is currently, with no way for a human to memorize all the solved variations.
Computer cheating, on the other hand, may ruin OTB chess.
Moses2792796 wrote:
@Seraphimity, this is simply not true. First of all, until chess is solved there is no way of proving beyond any doubt whether chess is a win for white or a draw, however almost all strong players believe that a game without any mistakes will result in a draw.
well and still all strong players lose against houdini. well ofc it would be logical to believe in common wisdom, but then a Tal, a Fischer, a Morphy or a Kasparov comes along like the 9th reincarnation of nietzsché and breaks the stone plates and we all of a sudden we see, the words of the ancient gods were wrong.
the question is not if chess could be solved, the question is if chess is still relevant at the time if it could get solved. Maybe japan will be the world government in the future and everyone will play go and shogi. Not to mention khomeini banned chess, probably he wont be the last dictator who did so , and maybe the next one will win a world war. Maybe all people lose interest in chess...
ponz111 wrote:
The term "chess will never be solved" is ambigous. What does it mean?
If the question is "is chess a draw with perfect play on both sides?" the answer is "yes".
We won't know it untill chess is solved. I'd rather say that it's a Mate in 91 for white. :D
The "solution" may involve pawn promotion(s).
After careful consideration, I think white is actually in zugzwang at the beginning. Black to play and win.
The ramifications are limitless.No two games the same and one reason is the game is different even if the same players. It is the same as adding a new number to the pre-existing one. It is accidently infinite.
The possibilities are not limited. The 50-move-rule enforces that there's only a maximum of 7100 moves in one game.
With an averaeg of let's say 20 possibilities per move that's only 20^14200 possibilities to take into account.
And while google-calculator gives "Infinity" for that, I think that's exaggerating!
"Despite its humble 64 squares and 32 pieces, chess is a virtually infinite game. The number of possible games is estimated to be 10 to the power of 123. This figure reduces the number of atoms in the universe to a meaninglessly small amount." Garry Kasparov, 2006.
Since there is a finite number of moves due to the 50 move rule as Xilmi pointed out, there are only a finite number of possibilities that force a win. I think however, that with best play they all result in draws. Rules such as stalemate may help the player who wishes to draw. Perhaps threefold repition could help a potential zugzwang. Obviously no human is going to solve chess, but with the help of computers I think we eventually will.
Chess will never be be solved. Before the technology to compute and store huge data will be developed, catasrophic events will take place. Survivors will return to play chess the old fashioned way... physical boards and pieces.