I think chess will be solved. I think the much more difficult game to solve is Go.
True or false? Chess will never be solved! why?
Sort:
If chess is one day solved, computers will still have to look forward to the big bad wolf of games to solve: Go.
A lot of modern games are actually more complex than Go or Chess by the way. FIrst person shooters for example, every little thing can be recorded, for every frame, which differentiates between players. That has got to be infinite orders of magnitude more complex than chess or go. Especially once you factor in a dozen people simultaneously moving at once. It's a bit overwhelming honestly, moreso than chess. What you should realize is that even the best players in the world for any game will never have complete understanding (Even the best players in shooters still die for example). That goes back to grandmasters believing that chess is a draw. It may (probably is) be a draw, but there is little to no proof behind it
So I personally think that we should all just embrace our humanity and imperfection and enjoy the games without ever trying to solve such things! What fun would a game be whenever you KNOW that if you play this move it's a forced win in say... 34 moves. Isn't it much more fun to believe that this is the right idea, and then allow your brains pleasure center to kick in when you made the right move? If the games were solved, there would be no pleasure in winning, and the game itself would die off.
So why do we even care? Whats the fun in solving chess? If it gets solved (yes I understand no one would ever be able to remember so many continuations) then there would be no need for further understanding of the game and it would eventually die off as it gets "too boring." So what do I think about this whole argument? I think you shouldn't be sticking your nose here. We never should find out if a game is a forced win. Look at checkers, when I was growing up that was THE game to play. Now that it's solved, I rarely hear anything from it, and not to mention, they have to do that weird 3 move randomness to keep the game fresh. Original checkers lost all of its flavor when the game was solved. I don't want that to happen to chess, it's too beautiful and it deserves to be left alone. And don't Go bothering the asians about their game either. (see what I did there?)
So your argument is we should not want to solve chess because it would affect us adversly if we knew the outcome [with best play]
dinkir9
Checkers was played for decades before it was solved. The top checker players knew it was a draw. They enjoyed the game even though they knew it was a draw.
The top grandmasters already know [in their own minds] that chess is a draw but I do not see any of them giving up the game or complaining because of this knowledge. In general, knowledge is good.
A draw (or a "solution" from a tablebase) that requires hundreds of moves will be of no practical significance for anyone's play, from GM's to patzers.
That's already true of many solutions from the 6 and 7 piece tablebases. A solution that takes 250+ moves is meaningless over the board. Duh?
Overall, the incentive to cheat might rise, but the incentive to play will likely remain the same.
It's amazing how long this topic has been flogged to death by people sufferring from the Cartesian Vice.
Ziryab wrote:
bigpoison wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
No love for Steinmetz around here, eh? I'd have to give him much more credit than Edison for making electric lighting cost effective.
You have a point, but Mr. Bean did not credit Steinmetz with the invention of electricity. He did so credit Edison.
Heehee. Captain Corrosion invented DC. Pretty sure Odin invented AC.
I have been trying to solve chess by writing a program to go through all the possible game scenarios and eliminating the losing and tying ones. This will only leave the winning ones. This program would be based on a running game you are playing with someone else (you would enter information to keep the program up to track). The program would search for the quickest way to win from the current scenario, as it has already found all the winning scenarios so it would follow one of the paths. Would this solve chess?
MeGusta Good luck in writing a program to solve chess. Be sure to let us all know when your program is complete.
MeGusta09 wrote:
I have been trying to solve chess by writing a program to go through all the possible game scenarios and eliminating the losing and tying ones. This will only leave the winning ones. This program would be based on a running game you are playing with someone else (you would enter information to keep the program up to track). The program would search for the quickest way to win from the current scenario, as it has already found all the winning scenarios so it would follow one of the paths. Would this solve chess?
Sure. With enough time to calculate and space to store the results this would solve chess.
In fact, a human could do it the same way, no need to write a program.
I think it would be almost impossible for a human to solve chess with pen and paper, because there are so many possibilties. Within the first two moves (one move from white and then a return move from black) there are 400 possible scenarios. 20 possible moves from white, and 20 return moves from black, so 20 squared. The average amount of moves in a chess game is about 40 (http://www.chessgames.com/chessstats.html) so imagine the number of possible scenarios, It would be huge. The only way I think this would be possible is if you had a team of about 100,000 or more calculating 2 possible games each that are different to everyone elses. It would be much easier writing a program.
MeGusta09 wrote:
I have been trying to solve chess by writing a program to go through all the possible game scenarios and eliminating the losing and tying ones. This will only leave the winning ones. This program would be based on a running game you are playing with someone else (you would enter information to keep the program up to track). The program would search for the quickest way to win from the current scenario, as it has already found all the winning scenarios so it would follow one of the paths. Would this solve chess?
how long will that take you to write? do you think it is worth making it when there are already so many strong engines out there?
MeGusta09 wrote:
I think it would be almost impossible for a human to solve chess with pen and paper, because there are so many possibilties. Within the first two moves (one move from white and then a return move from black) there are 400 possible scenarios. 20 possible moves from white, and 20 return moves from black, so 20 squared. The average amount of moves in a chess game is about 40 (http://www.chessgames.com/chessstats.html) so imagine the number of possible scenarios, It would be huge. The only way I think this would be possible is if you had a team of about 100,000 or more calculating 2 possible games each that are different to everyone elses. It would be much easier writing a program.
Or go outside and have some fun!
The program i have been trying to build could take up to a month to make for an experienced programmer. sadly i am not experienced in programming, in fact i have been programming in C++ for about 6 months :( . I am also attempting this alone as i dont know anyone else that programs at 14, this project would be much easiyer as a team. It would definetly be worth it though, as after something like 1000 years after invention chess could finally be solved. Even though there are really strong engines out there, Deep Blue was the first to beat the best chessmaster (Garry Kasparov in 1997) in the world, none of those engines are unbeatable.
MeGusta09 wrote:
(...) It would definetly be worth it though, as after something like 100000000 years after invention chess could finally be solved (...).
Fixed for you.
Your idea of program is a great one, but it already has been heavily practiced and theoretized, so you can find a few improvements over the standard version : here, or there, for instance.
MeGusta09 wrote:
I think it would be almost impossible for a human to solve chess with pen and paper, because there are so many possibilties.
Yes, I know, I was teasing you because using a computer program to look at all the possibilities is equally impractical.
U can solve chess problems but
Another question related to this topic. Say you have a program that always wins or ties (it aims to always win) and you have the same program on another computer. what would happen if they played eachother? My idea is that they would either draw or white would win as white is always a step ahead (and therefore when both black and white are one step away from check mate white would win) any other ideas?
Chess could be won.
Before Edison invented "Electricity", people use kerosene lamps. Soon after LED lamps are invented, they replace traditional lamps.
These sorts of statements lead me to believe that you're producing satire. Are you making fun of Al Gore?
Edison did not invent electricity. Neither did Ben Franklin. Nor did either one discover it. Franklin demonstrated that a charge could pass along a kite string. He also wrote about chess.
Edison worked on light bulbs. Many people had made lightbulbs that could use electricity to light a room. But they remained costly and inefficient. Many would provide light for only a few seconds. Edison created an industrial research laboratory--the first of its type. His laboratory found a way to make light bulbs that were cheap and lasting. He made electric light economically feasible.
Happily for Rockefeller, whose fortune stemmed from kerosene. the work of others on internal combustion made another sort of gas valuable. His fortune grew despite the success of Edison's project.
No love for Steinmetz around here, eh? I'd have to give him much more credit than Edison for making electric lighting cost effective.
You have a point, but Mr. Bean did not credit Steinmetz with the invention of electricity. He did so credit Edison.