Yes, only when there's a forcing line, and only if you're OK with a weak solution -- you still need to exhaustively search the suboptimal branches for a strong solution.
True or false? Chess will never be solved! why?
Sort:
tmodel66 wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
tmodel66 wrote:
In my lifetime, there were people who claimed that computers could never outplay the strongest GMs because of the GMs' inate intuitive skills. Then, Big Blue proved that premise wrong. In time, I believe chess could be "solved" (i.e.for any given opening move, it could be determined what the forced outcome would be with best play by both sides).
How long that "time" would take is a study in iteslf that could be calcluated/postulated by a mathmetician using Moore's Law.
Those limitations were rooted in the imaginations of the claimants.
The limitations on solving chess are physical ones.
Given infinite time, finite resources could solve chess. There are finite pieces in a game and finite moves.
Some have theorized on the fall of civilization or other historical factors as untracking the successful solution of chess. To me, this is more logical than the physical computing space argument.
I also agree with OnStar that building a machine capable of calculating an outcome - not exhaustively storing all outcomes - is an acceptable (and achievable) solution.
Actually with finite time and finite resources it can be done in theory. The problem is that the finite time and finite resources resources required might as well be infinite for all practical purposes.
The solution OnStar refers to is actually a weak one. The solution you refer to is ultra-weak.
Jun 13, 2013
0
#84
TheGrobe wrote:
tmodel66 wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
tmodel66 wrote:
In my lifetime, there were people who claimed that computers could never outplay the strongest GMs because of the GMs' inate intuitive skills. Then, Big Blue proved that premise wrong. In time, I believe chess could be "solved" (i.e.for any given opening move, it could be determined what the forced outcome would be with best play by both sides).
How long that "time" would take is a study in iteslf that could be calcluated/postulated by a mathmetician using Moore's Law.
Those limitations were rooted in the imaginations of the claimants.
The limitations on solving chess are physical ones.
Given infinite time, finite resources could solve chess. There are finite pieces in a game and finite moves.
Some have theorized on the fall of civilization or other historical factors as untracking the successful solution of chess. To me, this is more logical than the physical computing space argument.
I also agree with OnStar that building a machine capable of calculating an outcome - not exhaustively storing all outcomes - is an acceptable (and achievable) solution.
Actually with finite time and finite resources it can be done in theory. The problem is that the finite time and finite resources resources required might as well be infinite for all practical purposes.
The solution OnStar refers to is actually a weak one. The solution you refer to is ultra-weak.
I don't see how this would be considered weak. If you can apply an algorithm from the starting position and arrive at an optimal move in 3-days (or some time control), why not apply the same algorithm to any hypothetical position? You could guarantee an optimal move from any position.
Also, I don't see why you'd need a table-base to claim a strong solution. If you have a machine that can calculate the optimal move from a single position, it would never need to store all legal positions. Just run the algorithm as needed for the position you are in.
Jun 13, 2013
0
#85
TheGrobe wrote:
Actually with finite time and finite resources it can be done in theory. The problem is that the finite time and finite resources resources required might as well be infinite for all practical purposes.
The solution OnStar refers to is actually a weak one. The solution you refer to is ultra-weak.
I guess we agree then. The thread title asks will chess ever be solved? Maybe not - unless technology advances and the will to solve chess persists. Can chess be solved? Yes, theoretically, it can.
The technology exists to solve certain positions today or to demonstrate to a high level of certainty the outcome. Widely accepted theories (like gravity) cannot be exhaustively proven because every scenario cannot be empirically tested.
(Note: TheGrobe and I have precisely the same online rating today AND are arguing this trivial issue - What are the odds of that? Shows you what strange confluences can occur in the spectrum of time, I suppose.)
Jun 13, 2013
0
#86
TheGrobe wrote:
Yes, only when there's a forcing line, and only if you're OK with a weak solution -- you still need to exhaustively search the suboptimal branches for a strong solution.
Unless you need to store those positions, I don't see why you would need to.
If I notice that 42.Qb6# is an option for me on my next move, I do not need to evaluate a potentially challenging contest after 42.Qb4. It in no way contributes knowledge needed for an optimal move.
OnStar wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
The solution OnStar refers to is actually a weak one. The solution you refer to is ultra-weak.
I don't see how this would be considered weak. If you can apply an algorithm from the starting position and arrive at an optimal move in 3-days (or some time control), why not apply the same algorithm to any hypothetical position? You could guarantee an optimal move from any position.
Also, I don't see why you'd need a table-base to claim a strong solution. If you have a machine that can calculate the optimal move from a single position, it would never need to store all legal positions. Just run the algorithm as needed for the position you are in.
Because you don't know what moves to play in a number of positions, due to having pruned them in the initial analysis.
OnStar wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
Yes, only when there's a forcing line, and only if you're OK with a weak solution -- you still need to exhaustively search the suboptimal branches for a strong solution.
Unless you need to store those positions, I don't see why you would need to.
If I notice that 42.Qb6# is an option for me on my next move, I do not need to evaluate a potentially challenging contest after 42.Qb4. It in no way contributes knowledge needed for an optimal move.
For a strong solution it does contribute if your starting position is the one after 42. Qb4.
Jun 13, 2013
0
#89
TheGrobe wrote:
OnStar wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
Yes, only when there's a forcing line, and only if you're OK with a weak solution -- you still need to exhaustively search the suboptimal branches for a strong solution.
Unless you need to store those positions, I don't see why you would need to.
If I notice that 42.Qb6# is an option for me on my next move, I do not need to evaluate a potentially challenging contest after 42.Qb4. It in no way contributes knowledge needed for an optimal move.
For a strong solution it does contribute if your starting position is the one after 42. Qb4.
But I would have an additional 3 days to evaluate if that position needed to be evaluated.
Edit: it would only be necessary information for an optimal move for a different evaluation.
The parameters I am hypothesizing are to create an algorithm that could evaluate a single position in some time control for a legal game (I've been saying 3 days). For evaluating one position, I only need to consider any position reachable from the starting position that is not the result of a path where one side or the other has choosen a less than optimal move.
tmodel66 wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
Actually with finite time and finite resources it can be done in theory. The problem is that the finite time and finite resources resources required might as well be infinite for all practical purposes.
The solution OnStar refers to is actually a weak one. The solution you refer to is ultra-weak.
I guess we agree then. The thread title asks will chess ever be solved? Maybe not - unless technology advances and the will to solve chess persists. Can chess be solved? Yes, theoretically, it can.
The technology exists to solve certain positions today or to demonstrate to a high level of certainty the outcome. Widely accepted theories (like gravity) cannot be exhaustively proven because every scenario cannot be empirically tested.
(Note: TheGrobe and I have precisely the same online rating today AND are arguing this trivial issue - What are the odds of that? Shows you what strange confluences can occur in the spectrum of time, I suppose.)
Yes, theoretically chess is solvable. Practically it is not.
Incidentally all positions with seven or less pieces have strong solutions today. Eight is being worked on, however each additional piece ads an exponential degree of complexity, time and storage requirements, and we're not even a quarter of the way (piece-wise) to the 32 piece table-base required to call a solution "Strong".
OnStar wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
OnStar wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
Yes, only when there's a forcing line, and only if you're OK with a weak solution -- you still need to exhaustively search the suboptimal branches for a strong solution.
Unless you need to store those positions, I don't see why you would need to.
If I notice that 42.Qb6# is an option for me on my next move, I do not need to evaluate a potentially challenging contest after 42.Qb4. It in no way contributes knowledge needed for an optimal move.
For a strong solution it does contribute if your starting position is the one after 42. Qb4.
But I would have an additional 3 days to evaluate if that position needed to be evaluated.
Three days? I don't understand.
Jun 13, 2013
0
#93
Flight has been solved.Space has been conquered.Invisibility is now possible.Cloning basically makes us gods .
Look back 500 years and no one would have any idea of time travel.Now it is considered theoretically possible.Humans have always underestimated our own progress.
Chess will be solved unless we destroy ourselves first.
chessBBQ wrote:
Look back 500 years and no one would have any idea of time travel.Now it is considered theoretically possible.
It is? Theoretically plausible, maybe, depending which theory you subscribe to.
chessBBQ wrote:
Flight has been solved.Space has been conquered.Invisibility is now possible.Cloning basically makes us gods .
Look back 500 years and no one would have any idea of time travel.Now it is considered theoretically possible.Humans have always underestimated our own progress.
Chess will be solved unless we destroy ourselves first.
In what way? 3 popular attributes of a god are all-powerful, all-knowing and good. Not sure how cloning relates to any of those lol.
Source?
waffllemaster wrote:
chessBBQ wrote:
Flight has been solved.Space has been conquered.Invisibility is now possible.Cloning basically makes us gods .
Look back 500 years and no one would have any idea of time travel.Now it is considered theoretically possible.Humans have always underestimated our own progress.
Chess will be solved unless we destroy ourselves first.
In what way? 3 popular attributes of a god are all-powerful, all-knowing and good. Not sure how cloning relates to any of those lol.
Source?
Now this, definitely depends on the god....
Oh, and the "crazier things have happened so my uninformed opinion is not only possible but very much likely" gets pretty old really fast.
One day the human race will be made up entirely of cheese. Don't believe me? They used to think the earth was flat. Did you know that? Didn't think so. Pro tip: invest in crackers.
TheGrobe wrote:
waffllemaster wrote:
chessBBQ wrote:
Flight has been solved.Space has been conquered.Invisibility is now possible.Cloning basically makes us gods .
Look back 500 years and no one would have any idea of time travel.Now it is considered theoretically possible.Humans have always underestimated our own progress.
Chess will be solved unless we destroy ourselves first.
In what way? 3 popular attributes of a god are all-powerful, all-knowing and good. Not sure how cloning relates to any of those lol.
Source?
Now this, definitely depends on the god....
Hehe, got me there.
I think that's interesting for certain reasons that would derail this thread so NVM :p
Jun 13, 2013
0
#99
waffllemaster wrote:
chessBBQ wrote:
Flight has been solved.Space has been conquered.Invisibility is now possible.Cloning basically makes us gods .
Look back 500 years and no one would have any idea of time travel.Now it is considered theoretically possible.Humans have always underestimated our own progress.
Chess will be solved unless we destroy ourselves first.
In what way? 3 popular attributes of a god are all-powerful, all-knowing and good. Not sure how cloning relates to any of those lol.
Source?
Off-topic, but BBQ is probably referring to another god-like (or God-like, if you prefer) attribute - the power of Creation. While I am not omniscient, this is my "ultra-weak" conjecture.
tmodel66 wrote:
waffllemaster wrote:
chessBBQ wrote:
Flight has been solved.Space has been conquered.Invisibility is now possible.Cloning basically makes us gods .
Look back 500 years and no one would have any idea of time travel.Now it is considered theoretically possible.Humans have always underestimated our own progress.
Chess will be solved unless we destroy ourselves first.
In what way? 3 popular attributes of a god are all-powerful, all-knowing and good. Not sure how cloning relates to any of those lol.
Source?
Off-topic, but BBQ is probably referring to another god-like (or God-like, if you prefer) attribute - the power of Creation. While I am not omniscient, this is my "ultra-weak" conjecture.
When I plant a garden am I creating? How is fertilizing and growing a human seed (so to speak) creating?
Is my question to him.
In my lifetime, there were people who claimed that computers could never outplay the strongest GMs because of the GMs' inate intuitive skills. Then, Big Blue proved that premise wrong. In time, I believe chess could be "solved" (i.e.for any given opening move, it could be determined what the forced outcome would be with best play by both sides).
How long that "time" would take is a study in iteslf that could be calcluated/postulated by a mathmetician using Moore's Law.
Those limitations were rooted in the imaginations of the claimants.
The limitations on solving chess are physical ones.
Given infinite time, finite resources could solve chess. There are finite pieces in a game and finite moves.
Some have theorized on the fall of civilization or other historical factors as untracking the successful solution of chess. To me, this is more logical than the physical computing space argument.
I also agree with OnStar that building a machine capable of calculating an outcome - not exhaustively storing all outcomes - is an acceptable (and achievable) solution.