When / how was chess first "solved" by a software program?

The question came up with a friend, when I mentioned playing some old chess video games that I like, and he replied that any such games from the mid- to late- 90's are insufficient, because chess had never been solved yet!

So it has piqued my curiosity if others agree, and if anyone can pinpoint when and how exactly chess was first solved by some software program?  

 

 

Chess hasn't been solved and it almost surely won't be solved for hundreds if not thousands of years.

^Thanks, yeah I was skeptical that it had ever been solved at all.  My friend seemed to think it was solved in the early 2000's.

If anyone has any more info about attempts at chess being solved over the years, please post!  

Also, do people agree with my friend that all chess video games / programs are obsolete if they were made before the 2000's?  I'm fond of a few old ones, lol.   

Checkers and connect 4 were recently solved.

(Just to give you an idea, it took hundreds of computers two decades to solve checkers)

However, it is not physically possible under our current understanding of physics for us to ever be able to solve chess under a reasonable timeframe (i.e. before the universe ends). It is possible that the current theories of the universe will be turned on their heads, and some amazing new physics will allow us to build something even better than a quantum computer. But under our current understanding, it will never be feasible.

Official checkers (10*10 board) are not solved (yet).

Chess will never be solved, as the needed molecules to store the solution are more than the ones available on planet earth.

"Not solved" means "not solved perfectly". It's not known whether white has a forced win from the starting position given perfect play by White.  But many chess-related problems have been solved for a long time, like:

How can we make a computer program so it gives valid chess moves for one side, and tracks the position correctly when valid moves are given to it?

How can we make a computer program that considers various possible moves and uses a strategy to pick one that seems better than the others?

The programs keep getting better, and the number of solved positions keeps increasing. Computational machinery keeps getting cheaper and the machines get faster and better, so they move closer to solving chess completely.  It's still a long way away before all the positions are known.  They can play better than humans now.

IM pfren, i wish there would be a slightly better explanation than just the number of molecules.  Using logic can reduce the number of memory slots required in general problems by arbitrary orders of magnitude, so that explanation seems insufficient.  We know that if we keep adding 2 to a number than the remainder remains the same when divided by 2, and we don't need infinitely many memory slots to do it.

i disagree with all people who say chess will never be solved or be solved in hundreds of years. i can not predict if and when chess will be solved .

@FirebrandX: source?

@FirebrandX: Do you know how chess engines work? All they do is calculate some dozens of moves and then evaluate the resulting positions. However the evaluation function was programmed by humans and human standards. So probably rooks on open files are actually not that good. We will probably never know :)

What about my friend's view that ALL chess videogames are lame if they were made before the 2000's?  Do you guys agree or disagree with that assumption?    

Personally I can't imagine that the assumption makes sense lol.  What do you guys think?! 

Just who is this "chess friend" of yours?

What is his definition of "lame?"

Just what is a chess video game?  Are you referring to any software program capable of playing chess?

If your friend is referring to the many advances by chess computer playing strength over the twenty years, then he has a point.  The strength of today's software is much, much stronger than what was available, say, 20 years ago.

Note that Deep Blue, which was actually a combination of software and hardware, was quite strong.  Deep Blue beat Kasparov back in 1997, about 17 years ago.  I wouldn't call Deep Blue "lame" (but I also wouldn't call it a "chess video game").

If your friend is of the ADD generation and needs flashy graphics to hold his attention, then I guess I'd understand his opinion about the old programs being lame. I think it's his loss. RexChess, MChess, WChess, Zarkov, and others, coupled with DosBox/DFend Reloaded are entertaining enough, imho.

http://www.top-5000.nl/cp.htm

OK to answer your questions:
--This "chess friend" is a guy in my circle of friends, and so I see him often when I see my own friends.  He's good at chess, and I've played him often at social events.  

He's also on the site (rated in the 1300's) and so I've been playing online matches against him constanstly for a couple years.  He used to always destroy me but I've been catching up to his skill level lately. 

I call him my "chess friend" because despite this strong chess connection, he and I can barely hold a conversation lol.  Chess is the only single common-ground connection, it seems.

--Re:  what is lame:  Basically he thinks that there are no chess videogames that are WORTH PLAYING if they were made before the 2000's.  This means all computer chess games, and all chess titles on actual video game consoles.  

And thank you for mentioning Deep Blue first beat a person in '97.  It makes me wonder if THAT event, might be the reason for my friend's views on chess games being insufficient before the 2000's...   (In other words, maybe he figures that chess videogames were only made good enough, after Deep Blue happened.)

You could download Fritz 5.32, which was released in 1999, onto a PC and get him to play that (not sure he'll agree it counts as a video game though).

Maybe to "make it interesting", have a small wager on the outcome - you might make a few bucks. 

When God built the engine he couldn't beat.

Not just any person - the world champ!

^Right, I know he was the world champ.  lol  I didn't say it right.  I meant that Deep Blue 1st beat the BEST person in '97.  (I.e. it was the historic 1st time the best human had been beaten by a computer.)  

Regarding my friend:  I suspect that Deep Blue is the event that makes him think that all chess software is not worth playing, until the early 2000's.  I'll have to ask him... 

Re:  Deep Blue itself:  It's a fascinating, suspicious event.  Here is the best summary of it from Wikipedia:  

 After the loss, Kasparov said that he sometimes saw deep intelligence and creativity in the machine's moves, suggesting that during the second game, human chess players had intervened on behalf of the machine, which would be a violation of the rules. IBM denied that it cheated, saying the only human intervention occurred between games. The rules provided for the developers to modify the program between games, an opportunity they said they used to shore up weaknesses in the computer's play that were revealed during the course of the match. Kasparov requested printouts of the machine's log files but IBM refused, although the company later published the logs on the Internet.^[16] Kasparov demanded a rematch, but IBM refused and dismantled Deep Blue.^[17] Owing to an insufficient sample of games between Deep Blue and officially rated chess players, a chess rating for Deep Blue was not established.


 

^So what do you guys think of the Deep Blue event, summarized above?  Doesn't it seem suspicious?  

The best chess player in the world had the impression that there was CHEATING (i.e. humans helping the computer beat him in the 2nd game).  Does anyone think IBM cheated like Kasparov accused them?

IBM's initial refusal to release print-outs of Deep Blue's log files:  Isn't THAT suspicious?  Their refusal implies that they were hiding something, i.e. hiding their cheating. 

And then why in the world would IBM refuse a rematch and dismantle the supercomputer?  Sorry but everything suggests (to me) that they cheated and covered it up!

I can't see any other reason they'd destroy Deep Blue after that one single (dubious) accomplishment. 

If Deep Blue was legit, then I'd expect IBM to keep the machine forever, as an important piece of history.

Plus, why didn't they keep Deep Blue actually playing against humans?  If the thing was legit, then they could have held famous matches / competitons against the computer, for years to come!  

To me, everything suggests that IBM cheated (as Kasparov accused), and I think Deep Blue was a fraud.  

Anyone agree? 

@OP - I can't really tell if you're trolling or not. (Should I give you the benefit of the doubt? )

In a nutshell, I doubt the IBMers were cheating, but I guess it's possible. Or maybe they were acting like George Costanza and just wanted to go out on a high note. I like Kasparov, but he's always had a HHHUUUGGGEEE ego, and I don't think he'll ever get over that loss. Your friend is in the 1300s here, and chess programs for PCs were hitting the 2200s in the early 90s. I don't understand how he could think they aren't worth playing. Anything I'm forgetting to weigh in on?