True or false? Chess will never be solved! why?

Sort:
zborg
ponz111 wrote:

Kasparov is correct that the game of chess will never be "solved".  But he and almost all GMs and Super GMs are also correct that the game of chess is a draw when both sides make no errors.

I will also add that many such games have already been played.

If only the hoi polloi would listen.  But they're too busy having fun in this thread.

Thanks again, in any case.  Smile

watcha
TurboFish wrote:

Furthermore, researchers report evidence that quantum effects help the process of biological photosynthesis to find near-optimal paths for conversion of photon energy into chemical energy.

I have a blog post about the limits of quantum computation in solving chess. After writing the post came to my attention some new results of quantum effects in microtubules that can be found in the brain.

I added this update to my post:

" Since I have written this post some dramatic new results of large scale quantum coherence exhibited by living organisms came to my attention. It has been demonstrated that microtubules in the brain when excited at certain frequencies show signs of superconductivity ( which is large scale quantum behaviour ). This discovery may turn our knowledge about quantum computing upside down. It seems that what scientists are trying to do at near zero kelvin temperatures with a few quantum bits nature has long since managed to do with billions of bits at room temperature. This is not an isolated case of the brain: it turns out that also in photosynthesis quantum behaviour plays a part. It has been long known that organisms having only one cell and no neurons or nerves can behave very intelligently ( can swin, can find food, avoid obstacles, even have short term memory ). The new discoveries on microtubules can now explain this kind of intelligent information processing as well. If the brain is more than just a network of neurons and can process infromation at quantum level then the number of elementary operations it can perform can be much more than previously expected, on the order of 10^27 operations per second. This means that 1 million human brains in 1 year are capable of performing operations on the order of the number of legal chess positions.

 

These new discoveries open the way for a new approach toward understanding consciousness as well. They lend experimental credibility to a theory of consciousness that has been around for 20 years now: the Orch-OR ( orchestrated objective reduction ) hypothesis of anaesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff and emeritus professor of mathematics Roger Penrose. It is important to note that Penrose goes further than orthodox quantum mechanics would allow: he assumes that the underlying physics is uncomputable therefore the brain can have qualia ( conscious experience ) and access truths that are not available to the conventional ( Turing ) method of computation ( all classical computers we have today are Turing machines ). However whether Penrose is right or not on this issue does not make any difference for the practical speed of computation: even if the orthodox view that quantum computers in principle can't do anything more than a Turing machine with at most exponential slowdown could do, the sheer speedup offered by room temperature large scale quantum behaviour can be a game changer in computing."

zborg

Indeed, this thread clearly has the problem bass-ackwards.

Quantum mechanics notwithstanding.

Still, Roger Penrose had it right in The Emperor's New Mind (1989).

The_Ghostess_Lola

I love Ada Lovelace !....and I think her father may have been Lord Byron. Oops....#1140 already said that.

computo200

No, chess is not solvable. The number of variations are just too may for a poor computer to envision.

watcha
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:

I love Ada Lovelace !....and I think her father may have been Lord Byron.

Нет, я не Байрон, я другой,
Еще неведомый избранник,
Как он, гонимый миром странник

( No, I'm not Byron; I am, yet,
Another choice for the sacred dole,
Like him - a persecuted soul )

Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov

EricFleet

When cheaters' accounts get removed, do their posting histories also go? I do not see Mathemagics' posts any longer.

Akatsuki64

My guess is a long time from now. It's nothing to worry about (ironic, no?).

The_Ghostess_Lola

Chess will one day soon be solved....it will....it will....it will....!!

Akatsuki64

Nah.  Can you explain why people say good luck before you see your test score? Saying it in bold does not make it anymore likely to happen, unless it involves God, of course.

Thanatos_01

i didn't know that chess could be solved .

USArmyParatrooper

Thanatos_01 wrote:

i didn't know that chess could be solved .

Of course it can. Although the number is unthinkably large, there is still a finite amount of combinations of moves that can be made in a given game.

There are without a doubt positions that the most powerful computers today think are equal, when in fact one side is already completely lost.

My guess is with "perfect" play on both sides every game is drawn.

Irontiger
watcha wrote:
(...)

ps.

The number of legal positions of chess is less than the number of water molecules in Earth's oceans. This is a huge number, but not one of cosmic proportions.

Well, I would call that "cosmic proportions" already.

It is not like we are going to be able to store one bit per molecule of water (or even per 10,000 molecules) in a full liter anytime soon. If it was possible at a relatively low energetic cost, it would equal to a Maxwell demon and "refute" thermodynamics - the first applications would most likely not be storage, let alone chess position solving.

Scottrf

Post.

watcha
Irontiger wrote:

It is not like we are going to be able to store one bit per molecule of water (or even per 10,000 molecules) in a full liter anytime soon. If it was possible at a relatively low energetic cost, it would equal to a Maxwell demon and "refute" thermodynamics

If by refuting thermodynamics you mean refuting the second law of thermodynamics, let's assume that storing information in water molecules takes 'x' [ Joule / bit ] energy. What is the relatively low value of 'x' which already violates the second law of thermodynamics and how does this violation happen? Why is not the second law of thermodynamics violated if 'x' has a higher value than that?

watcha

It seems that I have to answer my own question.

I have looked into this and I have found out that the minimum energy required to store one bit of information is determined by Landauer's principle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer's_principle ) and at room temperature it is:

2.85 Zeptojoule ( 2.85*10^-21 Joule )

The solar energy absorbed by Earth per year is ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy ):

3850000 Exajoule ( 3.85*10^24 Joule )

This means that using all solar energy absorbed by Earth the rate at which you can store information is 3.85*10^24/2.85*10^-21 [ bit / year ] which is:

1.35*10^45 [ bit / year ]

This is on the order of legal chess positions.

LightYearz

Chess can not be solved as the combinations of moves and positions equal a number near infinite.

watcha
Blockah wrote:

Chess can not be solved as the combinations of moves and positions equal a number near infinite.

It is a borderline case as far as a strong solution is concerned, but you can't say for certain that it is impossible because it breaches no theoretical limit. Within theoretical limits there is always room for creativity.

ponz111
watcha wrote:
Blockah wrote:

Chess can not be solved as the combinations of moves and positions equal a number near infinite.

It is a borderline case as far as a strong solution is concerned, but you can't say for certain that it is impossible because it breaches no theoretical limit. Within theoretical limits there is always room for creativity.

We cannot say with 100% certainty that chess will never be solved but a very good guess is that it will never be solved before our sun explodes.

We cannot say with 100% certainty that chess is a draw when both sides make no errors but the best chess players [GMs and above] are very  sure [99.9% sure] that chess is a draw when both sides play without errors.

I am 99.9% sure that there have been thousands of games played already with both sides making no errors.  [error meaning a mistake which would change the outcome of the game if the other side player/computer played perfectly]

Yvainovski

SoySauce~~~