What will be the impact of chess being solved? - Chess Forums - Page 3

nameno1had

May 3, 2012

0

#41

waffllemaster wrote:

Not all positions from 960 chess are unique remember, just the starting position. That's part of its appeal of course, for example endgames are still the same.

True, I did forget that for the moment. It's been a long day for me. Its almost time to study the back of my eye lids.

browni3141

May 3, 2012

0

#42

waffllemaster wrote:

ciljettu wrote:

waffllemaster wrote:

If chess is solved (all positions cataloged) it doesn't seem like 960 would hold out for more than... a month after that?

Opening theory can never be memorised for the 960 version, too many opening positions available. That means for practical purposes the 960 version cannot be solved.

I was just guessing. Obviously many 960 middlegame (and nearly all endgame) positions would fall into the classic chess solved category. I wonder how many unique positions 960 adds relative to the total number classic chess contains.

Or in other words, if a computer calculates and catalogs classic chess's (I'll guess 10^50) legal game positions, does 960 really add a noticeable amount? I'd tend to think that a few extra thousand (million?) wouldn't make much difference.

The number of positions unique to 960 would still be mindblowing, even if it's only an extremely small fraction of the total.

fyy0r

May 3, 2012

0

#43

jjeffrey wrote:

Let's pretend that chess is solved, and the latest version of Rybka plays perfect chess. Surely this would ruin chess, since nobody could ever be beaten simply by always playing the same move that perfect Rybka plays! But wait a minute....why not do this now? The current version of Rybka can already beat all humans, so just memorize all of Rybka's moves and you will be world champion. Good luck in this endeavor!!

The idea of engines being "good" is only valid in an unsolved environment. One engine being "good" and the other engine being "better" can only make sense if the engines don't fully know the result of their decisions. For example, a jet may fly faster than its counterpart in a race, but once either reaches the speed of light, speed becomes irrelevant. Once Chess is solved, how "good" an engine is becomes irrelevant. As of right now though, engines being stronger than people now makes some sad, but could also be thought of as a human achievement. The engines didn't make themselves. Regardless of this though, just because an engine can beat a human doesn't mean anything other than it knows how to play better.

waffllemaster

May 3, 2012

0

#44

@Browni
I'm also assuming that the technology present at the time chess is solved (assuming it's possible) would be astounding enough that 960 would not stave off a total solution for long. So that it's just a fractional amount is all I was concerned about.

waffllemaster

May 3, 2012

0

#45

fyy0r wrote:

jjeffrey wrote:

Let's pretend that chess is solved, and the latest version of Rybka plays perfect chess. Surely this would ruin chess, since nobody could ever be beaten simply by always playing the same move that perfect Rybka plays! But wait a minute....why not do this now? The current version of Rybka can already beat all humans, so just memorize all of Rybka's moves and you will be world champion. Good luck in this endeavor!!

The idea of engines being "good" is only valid in an unsolved environment. One engine being "good" and the other engine being "better" can only make sense if the engines don't fully know the result of their decisions. For example, a jet may fly faster than its counterpart in a race, but once either reaches the speed of light, speed becomes irrelevant. Once Chess is solved, how "good" an engine is becomes irrelevant. As of right now though, engines being stronger than people now makes some sad, but could also be thought of as a human achievement. The engines didn't make themselves. Regardless of this though, just because an engine can beat a human doesn't mean anything other than it knows how to play better.

His point (which I made earlier in the thread as well) is that having computers that can beat any human isn't operationally different for us players than a total solution. It may be psychologically different, but that's it.

nameno1had

May 3, 2012

0

#46

fyy0r wrote:

jjeffrey wrote:

Let's pretend that chess is solved, and the latest version of Rybka plays perfect chess. Surely this would ruin chess, since nobody could ever be beaten simply by always playing the same move that perfect Rybka plays! But wait a minute....why not do this now? The current version of Rybka can already beat all humans, so just memorize all of Rybka's moves and you will be world champion. Good luck in this endeavor!!

The idea of engines being "good" is only valid in an unsolved environment. One engine being "good" and the other engine being "better" can only make sense if the engines don't fully know the result of their decisions. For example, a jet may fly faster than its counterpart in a race, but once either reaches the speed of light, speed becomes irrelevant. Once Chess is solved, how "good" an engine is becomes irrelevant. As of right now though, engines being stronger than people now makes some sad, but could also be thought of as a human achievement. The engines didn't make themselves. Regardless of this though, just because an engine can beat a human doesn't mean anything other than it knows how to play better.

I don't necessarily think they know how to play better. I think a better way of looking at it is that, they know how to play as well as we do but, their brain is like having many of our brains, but all wired to function as one. I am sure if we could go to the hobby shop and pick up a 1000 brain coordination kit, we could smoke Houdini after we rolled it up tight...

TheGrobe

May 3, 2012

0

#47

Probably the biggest benefit will be that there will no longer be threads like this one (or the countless others like it). We'll know the answer to the question so it won't need to be asked over and over.

browni3141

May 3, 2012

0

#48

waffllemaster wrote:

@Browni
I'm also assuming that the technology present at the time chess is solved (assuming it's possible) would be astounding enough that 960 would not stave off a total solution for long. So that it's just a fractional amount is all I was concerned about.

I agree with you on that, but I thought you were saying that there are only a million positions unique to 960 as an upper estimate. I think the number should be much much higher.

nameno1had

May 3, 2012

0

#49

TheGrobe wrote:

Probably the biggest benefit will be that there will no longer be threads like this one (or the countless others like it). We'll know the answer to the question so it won't need to be asked over and over.

Well, we always will want something to talk about, even if it is the only thing...if you don't believe me, refer to some of my off topic posts in this thread for a reference...unless of course you are one of those people who can't think of anything good to talk about yourself nor deal with your critics, so you always want to put down others for thinking out loud when they are tired of being quiet...

TheGrobe

May 3, 2012

0

#50

Having something to talk about isn't the same thing as having something to say.

waffllemaster

May 3, 2012

0

#51

Well, if you think about all legal positions, that's an awful lot of variation, and I have to wonder how many positions chess 960 would offer that are unique.

Assuming even that they prune certain move orders when solving classical chess, I don't think chess 960 would offer that many more.

That said, I was probably pretty far off when I said only a few thousand or a million :) But I do think it would add many orders less than classic chess has.

damongross

May 3, 2012

0

#52

I've already solved chess. But my dog ate the 3x5 card that I wrote the solution down on.

ilikeflags

May 3, 2012

0

#53

it's fun when people talk about solving chess.

browni3141

May 3, 2012

0

#54

Chess can be solved by immortal monkeys.

ilikeflags

May 3, 2012

0

#55

the only thing worse than a thread about solving chess... posts about monkeys solving chess.

ClavierCavalier

May 3, 2012

0

#56

A thousand monkeys banging on 1,000 typewriters couldn't beat Bobby Fischer.

AlCzervik

May 3, 2012

0

#57

ilikeflags wrote:

the only thing worse than a thread about solving chess... posts about monkeys solving chess.

And they end up the same way.

waffllemaster

May 4, 2012

0

#58

browni3141 wrote:

Chess can be solved by immortal monkeys.

Yes, and I've discovered a truly marvelous proof for this. Pity it wont fit in this post. Maybe in a few hundred years they'll prove me right.

finalunpurez

May 4, 2012

0

#59

I dont think anyone should worry about this.

fgicon

May 4, 2012

0

#60

Chess at amateur level will never be solved. You simply dont see long theoretical lines at this level. "Slightly better for white" means nothing when you are below 2300 elo.

On the other hand, professional chess will be in danger because this people have the capacity to memorize an unhuman amount of information (Carlsen's father told that at 5 years old Magnus was able to guess any Norway town population).