"I'm not saying such a thing exists, I'm just saying that (as far as I know) no one has proved that it doesn't."
Nobody knowing that one exists is ample proof that it doesn't.
One could say the same thing about forced wins for Black from the starting position. Both sides of the argument are speculating, that's my point.
"I'm not saying such a thing exists, I'm just saying that (as far as I know) no one has proved that it doesn't."
Nobody knowing that one exists is ample proof that it doesn't.
One could say the same thing about forced wins for Black from the starting position. Both sides of the argument are speculating, that's my point.
No algorithm "exists", that gives the best move in any position that is much faster than anything that we have now. The fact that in ten or ten thousand years such an algorithm will be found, here or at the other end of the universe, does not make such an algorithm "exist" in the usual meaning. Would you say printing press existed before Gutemberg, because it was a physical possibility ?
On the opposite, the ideal outcome (ie the evaluation win/draw/loss for White) of the initial position does "exist" although we do not know it, because we are able to define very precisely what it is. We even have a theoretical (though unpractical) way to calculate it (brutal calculation). What the value is is not known for now (at best, guessed), but it "exists".
Yeah, Irontiger got my meaning. We know it doesn't exist at this current time.
"I'm not saying such a thing exists, I'm just saying that (as far as I know) no one has proved that it doesn't."
Nobody knowing that one exists is ample proof that it doesn't.
One could say the same thing about forced wins for Black from the starting position. Both sides of the argument are speculating, that's my point.
No algorithm "exists", that gives the best move in any position that is much faster than anything that we have now. The fact that in ten or ten thousand years such an algorithm will be found, here or at the other end of the universe, does not make such an algorithm "exist" in the usual meaning. Would you say printing press existed before Gutemberg, because it was a physical possibility ?
On the opposite, the ideal outcome (ie the evaluation win/draw/loss for White) of the initial position does "exist" although we do not know it, because we are able to define very precisely what it is. We even have a theoretical (though unpractical) way to calculate it (brutal calculation). What the value is is not known for now (at best, guessed), but it "exists".
Well, you're right, that's a different meaning of "exist" than how I was using it. I think of an algorithm as an abstract thing that exists before it is discovered, not like a physical device that only exists once someone builds it. I imagine most theoretical computer scientists think of them this way. Using your definition, I don't see how no algorithm "existing" right now is terribly relevant to whether chess can ever be solved. If someone invents an algorithm some time in the future, we (or rather they) may solve chess; if not, probably not.
I'm not claiming that. Clearly a "solution" that takes prohibitively long to query should not count. But what if there exists some brilliant new algorithm, different from the well-known tree search and much faster, based on some strange but powerful insight into the structure of chess that we have not yet discovered, that can solve a single position very quickly? I'm not saying such a thing exists, I'm just saying that (as far as I know) no one has proved that it doesn't.
Seems a little bit like fantasy though. The structure of chess is very simple. 32 pieces, 12 types, 64 squares. I can imagine searches becoming 2, 10, even 100 times more efficient, but if "prohibitively long" searches don't count then this algorithm would have to be something ridiculous like 10^20 times more efficient.
Enough with the excuses waffle (just noticed the spelling error), just get it done!
I'm not claiming that. Clearly a "solution" that takes prohibitively long to query should not count. But what if there exists some brilliant new algorithm, different from the well-known tree search and much faster, based on some strange but powerful insight into the structure of chess that we have not yet discovered, that can solve a single position very quickly? I'm not saying such a thing exists, I'm just saying that (as far as I know) no one has proved that it doesn't.
Seems a little bit like fantasy though. The structure of chess is very simple. 32 pieces, 12 types, 64 squares. I can imagine searches becoming 2, 10, even 100 times more efficient, but if "prohibitively long" searches don't count then this algorithm would have to be something ridiculous like 10^20 times more efficient.
Yes, it is fantasy. I have no reason to believe it. I don't really believe it. Someone who knows more about this particular problem than I do (i.e., anything at all) might have some cause to be hopeful, which they might or might not be able to explain to us.
A nothing is as good as a something about which nothing can be said.
Nothing can be said about "a fantasy," it's all just imagery. Nuff said?
Chess is a Draw. just like tic tac to. Eventualy, with a perfect white player vs a perfect black player the game will always be a draw. Black will always have an equal answer to what ever white plays... in a perfect world.
3 prevailing theories. 1) It's a draw with best play. 2) White wins with best play because he has the move and the initiatve. 3). Black always wins because white is in a profound state of zugzwang from move 1.
I tend to think it's 2) but chess will not be solved in anyone's life time soon. Who knows what will happen thousands of years from now. It's always hard to say something will "NEVER" happen. Eternity is a long time.
[...] But what if there exists some brilliant new algorithm, different from the well-known tree search and much faster, based on some strange but powerful insight into the structure of chess that we have not yet discovered, that can solve a single position very quickly? I'm not saying such a thing exists, I'm just saying that (as far as I know) no one has proved that it doesn't.
At the moment, we have 'computer moves' that look highly unnatural and to which our response might be "Why the heck did it play that?". With a bit of furtling around (because chess programs aren't good at explaining why they rated a move) we may come to an understanding of why the move was chosen.
But what will happen when the depth (and coverage - does pruning ever reject a winning line?) increases still further? I suspect we will see more utterly incomprehensible, counter-intuitive moves - maybe even moves that seem obviously bad to us. Will we even be able to comprehend any "explanation" we might glean from the computer, or will just have to accept that the move actually is not bad despite looks. At a superficial level this already happens with sacrifices leading to mate - although they only look bad to beginners until they grasp the idea of sacs. Is it possible (likely) that we will eventually see computers make 'deep sacrifices' that are forever beyond our human understanding?
3 prevailing theories. 1) It's a draw with best play. 2) White wins with best play because he has the move and the initiatve. 3). Black always wins because white is in a profound state of zugzwang from move 1.
Re point 2: Isn't it the case that the value of this initiative decays rapidly with the number of moves made?
One more question before coffee #2...
Are there any regular openings that have been demonstrably refuted (apart from KGA 
)? Or, to put it another way, how many moves have to be made before arriving at an opening variation that simply loses? Fool's Mate obviously lies on this continuum but doesn't count!
One more question before coffee #2...
Are there any regular openings that have been demonstrably refuted (apart from KGA )? Or, to put it another way, how many moves have to be made before arriving at an opening variation that simply loses? Fool's Mate obviously lies on this continuum but doesn't count!
Regular openings are considered as such precisely because they are not refuted...
Regular openings are considered as such precisely because they are not refuted...
Touché. Okay, so is there a list of named openings that have been refuted? Any in our lifetimes?
Regular openings are considered as such precisely because they are not refuted...
Touché. Okay, so is there a list of named openings that have been refuted? Any in our lifetimes?
It depends on what you mean by refuted. If you mean that the opening is proven to allow a forced loss with best play, then the only openings that have been refuted are things like Fool's Mate.
If by refuted you mean it leaves the player with a clear disadvantage based on current chess theory, then yes. But keep in mind that before the first world war everyone thought the hypermodern openings were "refuted". In other words, our understanding of chess can change and result in us reevaluating which openings are good/bad.
In our lifetimes... Depends on how old one is, let's say past 1960 to fix a mark.
It probably sums up to stuff like "Grandpatzer line of the Sub-interesting variation of the Ruy Lopez", ie some lines after move 10. If stuff has been refuted after move 4-5, it probably already was in those years.
A concrete example (before 1960) : if I remember well, some lines of the Tarrasch defense in the QGD just died to Rubinstein's idea of fianchettoing the bishop to g2 to pressure Black's isolani.
To those who say chess is a draw:
"Solving" a game is a concept from game theory, which is a branch of mathematics. Therefore it is the standards of mathematics, rather than the standards of common sense or everyday thinking, that apply to the answer. In math, if you haven't proven something, you don't get to regard it as true. The statement that chess is a draw has not been proven with mathematical rigor; therefore it is a conjecture, which is a word more polite than "speculation" that mathematicians use for something they suspect, perhaps very strongly, to be true but have not proven. Even the unanimous opinion of masters and grandmasters that chess is a draw does not mean that a game theorist can consider the game solved, any more than the widespread opinion of mathematicians that, say, the Poincare conjecture was true counted for anything until it was proven in the 2000's. That's just how math is.
Furthermore, people with a mathematical background are usually very reluctant to accept as true anything that could in principle be proven if it were true but hasn't been. This is why so many of us who know next to nothing about chess reject the "knowledge" of chess experts on this question.
To those who argue that chess cannot be solved because [some number] is a very large number, your belief that storing that much data or examining that many positions is necessary to solve the game is also conjecture as far as I know.
I ran into game theory in a graduate seminar in advances in anthropological theory. The professor did not know what to di with me when I suggested that all his win/loss scenarios struck me as likely draws.
His question concerned the evolution of altruism.
I look at chess this way, you win some wars, you lose some, and some you standoff awhile. The question has merit I guess, like "How many wars can we wage...lol? Tis better to play chess and move your army, than wage a war. I quit using a math analysis on chess..I now play for the enjoyment, but per all contributions here....great thread.
But you'd have to check every position to fit your version of solved? Might take a while.
Not exactly. For whatever position you wanted to know the value of, you'd only have to look at positions that are reachable from that one, and only a subset of those. But yes, it would take a while unless someone discovers some completely unexpected optimization that speeds up the calculation while still getting the correct answer.