i think it is possible to find al the legal possitions in chess and also find the correct move in al those possitions. but i don't think poeple would be happy if that would be done.
True or false? Chess will never be solved! why?
Sort:
Only Deep Thought could do it.
TheGrobe wrote:
They may, however, simply draw more because the winning idea(s) are still outside of their analysis horizon -- the same may well be true for humans as well.
This silly idea (above) fits well with the Evolution and God existence threads.
If you IMAGINE the solution to Chess lies outside the limits of your vision (or the vision of engines), you will always have this silly position to fall back upon. QED.
To infinity and beyond ?? Georg Cantor is surely turning over in his grave.
I beg to differ, I'm not assuming (let alone positing) that such a winning idea exists, I'm merely highlighting the possibility that it might as a counterpoint to the assumption that it does not. Simply saying that everything is trending towards a draw therefore it must be a draw is sloppy reasoning at best.
The relevant question -- is chess a DRAW regardless of color ??
The plausible answer is YES.
The Mathematical answer is -- probably NEVER to be answered. Who cares ??
End of Story.
zborg wrote:
The relevant question -- is chess a DRAW regardless of color ??
The plausible answer is YES.
The Mathematical answer is -- probably NEVER to be answered. Who cares ??
End of Story.
The probable answer is yes -- all answers are plausible, this is actually my exact point.
As to who cares? Obviously the OP, and numerous other posters who've responded about an actual solution and not some crude facsimile based on intuition and best-guesses.
TheGrobe wrote:
I beg to differ, I'm not assuming (let alone positing) that such a winning idea exists, I'm merely highlighting the possibility that it might as a counterpoint to the assumption that it does not. Simply saying that everything is trending towards a draw therefore it must be a draw is sloppy reasoning at best.
"Sloppy reasoning" is just a 2000 year old Platonist assertion in which you habitually hide. The implicit assumption is that mathematics is unassailable, that it's the be all and end all of human reasoning.
Sorry, but that's just bullshite. It's neat trick using the assertion of absolutes. Wake up and join the human conversation. No one stands on Mount Olympus. Yawn.
Let this thread go back to sleep for another 9 months, and we will all sleep better. 
I never said mathetmatics was unassailable, it's just on far firmer footing than intuition and best-guesses, whether by experts or not. Just because you'd prefer a looser definition of "solved" doesn't mean that the mathematical definition isn't the one being discussed in this thread.
Your world is binary, (firm footing versus guesses ??) and your head rather pinpointed. Sorry to break the news to you.
Human conversation is NOT a battle of pinheaded definitions, however construed.
Sep 8, 2014
0
#771
Chess won't be solved anytime soon, but "never" is an awfully long time.
One day we will be regarded as the "Ancients", and matters that presently mystify us will be taught in schools.
On that basis I'm forced to say "Maybe".
It's the question in the original post that is binary. You can discuss possibilities and proabilities all you want, it just doesn't address the question.
Yawn. Another "what solving means" argument.
Actually we are not that far away from perfect play if "perfect play" means both sides do not make even one mistake which would change the result of the game.
Lots of perfect games have already been played. [I know I will catch hell for saying so but it is the truth]
Yes, we're not that far away from any number of things if we change their definitions.
You cannot (and do not) know whether a mistake has been made or not in any of the games you have in mind.
The Knight's Tour is a completely different problem, you can't simply extrapolate from it to the game of chess. Why not just say that since Tic Tac Toe is solved to be a draw that chess must also be?
Some people prefer to talk colloquially while some try to be rigerous.
The only annoying thing I see is some aren't seeing the difference.
rdecredico wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
The Knight's Tour is a completely different problem, you can't simply extrapolate from it to the game of chess. Why not just say that since Tic Tac Toe is solved to be a draw that chess must also be?
Chess is not insoluble. The Knights tour proves there are many solutions that are all viable. I did not claim nor state it proved chess was solvable. I claimed the wise learn from it that there are many paths to perfection in chess.
Tables bases.
The key to solving chess.
The wise learn that there are many definitions of words. Some words are in another language, and some languages you can just make up!
Made up languages.
The key to being wise.
shell_knight wrote:
Some people prefer to talk colloquially while some try to be rigerous.
The only annoying thing I see is some aren't seeing the difference.
Colloquially speaking there is no difference. Rigorously speaking there is.
I rather think the strongest players including almost all grandmasters are correct when they say chess is a draw with best play.
Those who disagree are often not such strong players.
Sure, but those who are not GMs but also not in the category you mention "not such strong players" should also have the feeling chess is a draw. I'm just putting a few of the ideas in words.
And even if it's not unreasonable, an appeal to authority automatically feels specious in any case.
The higher the just knowledge the more liklihood someone will understand chess is a draw when played perfectly. Even down to the master level--most masters agree chess is a draw when played perfectly by both sides.
I agree, the more knowledge and ability they have, the more likely they are correct. And while it's easy to measure their knowledge against a baseline of no knowledge, when we imagine the comparison to the perfect player this actually becomes an argument against their credibility. i.e. they know much more than nothing, but how close are they to the truth?
Also an arguably shaky assumption is that strength vs draw-likelyhood is linear from beginner to perfect player. One could make an argument that it only appears linear and only as you get very close to perfect do decisive games suddenly spike.
In both cases it's because we're so far away from perfect play that there's still some doubt.