Hey watcha, you're the only one who is saying anything different and thought provoking... don't let the b'stards grind you down.
You look like an Old DOG! that's been Well Ground down!
I have, on occasion, been well ground down.
*Gurgle*
Hey watcha, you're the only one who is saying anything different and thought provoking... don't let the b'stards grind you down.
You look like an Old DOG! that's been Well Ground down!
I have, on occasion, been well ground down.
*Gurgle*
I am Sure! A.I.D.S is Rife where you live!
Yeah... I'm not doing this with you. Feel free to carry on though.
What, exactly, is left to the reader's imagination.
This is my estimate of tablebase complexity ( see #1187 ):
6 men: 2.03e+013
7 men: 2.36e+015
It is known that the 6 men tablebase requires 1.2 TB of storage.
To calculate the storage requirement from the complexity, you have to divide the 7 men complexity by the 6 men complexity and multiply this by 1.2 TB:
If you do the calculation this formula predicts that the 7 men tablebase should take 139.5 TB of space.
It is known that it uses 140 TB, so the complexity estimate predicts its size almost perfectly.
Estimated storage requirement for tablebases up to 12 men:
8 men : 13 Petabyte
9 men : 1.1 Exabyte
10 men : 74 Exabyte
11 men : 4.4 Zettabyte
12 men : 235 Zettabyte
Storage on the order of Petabytes is already happening:
http://information-technology.web.cern.ch/about/computer-centre
fantastic!! must remember!!
Watcha! Gotcha!
I think it's best we don't solve it. Even if we can, why should we? Hasn't it always been peoples dreams to think of something on their own? I don't want to think that after every move I make, whether it's good or not has already been figured out by some computer out there.
It would certainly be a lot of effort (and energy) for very little reward. So we will finally know for certain that chess is draw with best play (or not). Woopiedoo! Now if some deep and interesting mathematical truths were revealed along the way, that would make it a teeny bit more worthwhile - but I doubt that would come out of any brute force solution.
Every and each game is different. One more can alway be added to the ones already played.
Every and each game is different. One more can alway be added to the ones already played.
Always?
The term "chess will never be solved" is ambigous. What does it mean?
If the question is "is chess a draw with perfect play on both sides?" the answer is "yes".
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Is "is chess a draw with perfect play on both sides?" the answer is "yes" true if the playars are not playing for a draw?
And if so, how do you prove it?
WORKING BACKWARDS to try to simplify the research:
For a little mathematical rigor, maybe start with the question:
1. What's the theoretical maximum number of positions?
This question has an actual answer, although it's a BIG NUMBER!
Maybe someone has computed that number already? If not, a computer program needs to be written by some smart chess loving dude or dudette.
2. Once ALL the possible positions are known and catalogued (thank God for computers), some positions are already stalemates.
Others can be shown to be stalemateable, but not yet stalemates.
Some are already checkmates.
Many others will be "Mate in 1" or "mate in 2" etc
Many can be easily shown to be winnable positions, for instance if one color has enough material to mate, and the other color only has the King, with no immediate stalemate option for stalemate.
In thoughts like the above you can chip away at how many positions "would result in draw with perfect play from both sides."
Without this kind of in depth analysis, I'm not sure you can say that with "perfect play" white can't win. Maybe white can win?
WORKING BACKWARDS to try to simplify the research:
For a little mathematical rigor, maybe start with the question:
1. What's the theoretical maximum number of positions?
This question has an actual answer, although it's a BIG NUMBER!
Maybe someone has computed that number already? If not, a computer program needs to be written by some smart chess loving dude or dudette.
2. Once ALL the possible positions are known and catalogued (thank God for computers), some positions are already stalemates.
Others can be shown to be stalemateable, but not yet stalemates.
Some are already checkmates.
Many others will be "Mate in 1" or "mate in 2" etc
Many can be easily shown to be winnable positions, for instance if one color has enough material to mate, and the other color only has the King, with no immediate stalemate option for stalemate.
In thoughts like the above you can chip away at how many positions "would result in draw with perfect play from both sides."
Without this kind of in depth analysis, I'm not sure you can say that with "perfect play" white can't win. Maybe white can win?
For #1, 10^43 seems widely accepted. This number, and its implications for the question was discussed in some detail a year ago in this thread.
#2 remains beyond the capabilities of anticipated future storage capabilities. Encoding data in DNA still requires a hard drive larger than the solar system.
Proof that chess was not created by humans, was not created by mere mortals like ourselves!
As pointed out we don't know the other players intensions in the game. If your only about winning,not the complexity & interreactions of the game here is a pretty easy way to win. Keep intensions hidden by slowly playing into a position where you can engage in an exchange in which you end up with even just 1 pawn in front. Then just immediatly start swapping off players as quickly as possible till you have a king & pawn left & they just have the king. Keep your king positioned between their king & your pawn & take it up & swap it for a queen then it's not many moves to mate. Not a nice way to play. However in a tournament if you just want the win it's really hard to play against a player who does this & annoys opponents so their concentration is less than it could have been :)
and easy to prevent for most players over 1200
This thread no longer makes sense.
Jion_Wansu wrote:
Proof that chess was not created by humans, was not created by mere mortals like ourselves!
Hey watcha, you're the only one who is saying anything different and thought provoking... don't let the b'stards grind you down.