When Chess gets "Solved"...

I dont think that will  happen after all it is people who gave  computers instrutions.

Loomis wrote:

artfizz wrote:

Chess learning computers are quite interesting - provided that they have started out from not even knowing how the pieces move - in the same way that people have to. 

Maybe you like to torture new players, but I always teach them how the pieces move and the object of the game. Surely computers (even "learning" ones) deserve the same courtesy.

In fact, when new players show interest in doing so, I'm happy to give them a few strategy tips such as ...

I could see arguments for and against letting computers have the same benefit of our learned wisdom. ...

There are several different approaches to computer learning. The Neural Net approach is probably the most similar one to the way a baby learns - by trial and error. Rather than burden the computer with any preconceived ideas about 'good' and 'bad' strategies, you could just cut it loose to move any piece anywhere. If it makes an illegal move, it gets penalised. If it makes a legal move, the game proceeds. It will doubtless lose a few games initially, but after a while, it ought to figure out for itself by pattern analysis which moves are legal. After a few million games, it should have worked out which combination of moves help it win games, and which sequences of moves make it lose games.

If you try to help the computer by instructing it, for example, to keep knights away from the edge of the board, that may prevent it from discovering some totally new, alien strategies: "it's OK to have a knight on f7 provided you also have a bishop on e4 and a pawn on g5, and your opponent has ...", say.

Kami5909 wrote:

It occurs to me that chess might not be a puzzle, and by that logic, might not have a "solution".

               ?

I believe chess is got to have a solution.

artfizz, I agree with you that allowing a neural net to start from zero in chess strategy might lead to new discoveries. I have yet to see any good argument that a computer should learn the moves of the game on it's own by trial and error. Your analogy to human learning fails because no humans learn chess by trying moves and being penalized for illegal ones. (And perhaps a baby learns a few things by trial and error, but in my experience babies come equipped with parents that teach them how to do everything -- including shoving food down their face.)

Even the procedure of making moves and being punished for illegal ones assumes you've taught the machine what squares and pieces are even if not how to move them. Or would your require the computer to give random output until it strikes upon a chess move at which point it's "rewarded".

Loomis wrote:

 would you require the computer to give random output until it strikes upon a chess move at which point it's "rewarded".

artfizz: YES.

... I have yet to see any good argument that a computer should learn the moves of the game on it's own by trial and error. ..

How about this one: to delay the 'WHEN' in 'When Chess gets "Solved"...'

Was it Lasker that said perfect play from both sides is a draw? Is this actually true? If chess were to be solved, does this mean all games would be draws. So, does this mean Leko has solved chess?

In fact, when new players show interest in doing so, I'm happy to give them a few strategy tips such as the rough value of the pieces, the importance of king safety along with a few checkmate patterns, the value of the center, use all your pieces together, knights are good on advanced posts, watch out for weaknesses.

The problem here is that if we give computers that "starting info" we are making computers conform to our way of thinking.  In other words, perhaps once the solution is found it turns out the center is not valuable at all?  Or that in the perfect game knights are worthless on advanced posts?

We do not want to "taint" the computers knowledge with anything that is not proven 100% correct and we still can not prove those 100%.  They are very very very very good ideas but not 100% fool proof.

Don't worry. Both computer and chess  are the invention of our brain. Let's take the advantage of computer and utilise it to improve our thinking.

But chess wiill not rmain as popular as it is today.

SANKHA'S remark is most profound. Think of it, both chess and computers are an invention of the human mind. Both are very powerful inventions that grow stronger year after year. We must now use one of our inventions (computers) to solve, or at least make stronger, the other invention (chess).

This is deep thinking. When you think about it, EVERYTHING is an invention of the  human mind. Everything I am looking at right now is invented. Yes, even what I'm looking at outside is invented (my grass and trees are hybrids created at the U of W agri-labs. Yes, even cheater_1 is an invention of a human...AND I AM an invention of 2 humans (my mom and dad). They created me. I'll not get into an evolution vs creation debate (i think you all know what I believe in).

I think now I am going to have a few KILLIANS, put on DARK SIDE OF THE MOON, and contemplate the meaning of life.

I think people should bet on whether chess is a forced win for white(due to having the first move initiative), a forced win for black(due to zugzwang), or a draw with best play on both sides. I would say drawn.

cheater_1 wrote:

SANKHA'S remark is most profound. Think of it, both chess and computers are an invention of the human mind. Both are very powerful inventions that grow stronger year after year. We must now use one of our inventions (computers) to solve, or at least make stronger, the other invention (chess).

This is deep thinking. When you think about it, EVERYTHING is an invention of the  human mind. Everything I am looking at right now is invented. Yes, even what I'm looking at outside is invented (my grass and trees are hybrids created at the U of W agri-labs. Yes, even cheater_1 is an invention of a human...AND I AM an invention of 2 humans (my mom and dad). They created me. I'll not get into an evolution vs creation debate (i think you all know what I believe in).

I think now I am going to have a few KILLIANS, put on DARK SIDE OF THE MOON, and contemplate the meaning of life.

Heh, getting deep, cheater ;)

You know, the dark side of the moon isn't as bad as it sounds.

The chess computers have become some kind of ani9mals which humans have not invented any more. It is just like if we in a lab cross two different kind of animals and the offspring is an extremely smart animal, we can't claim that all the invensions the new animal makes are our invensions.

ehh.... LOL 

If chess is ever solved then their is one way of making it interesting again. Let Black have the first move and we can start all the analysis from zero. :)

cheater_1 wrote:

This is deep thinking. When you think about it, EVERYTHING is an invention of the  human mind. Everything I am looking at right now is invented. Yes, even what I'm looking at outside is invented (my grass and trees are hybrids created at the U of W agri-labs. Yes, even cheater_1 is an invention of a human...AND I AM an invention of 2 humans (my mom and dad). They created me. I'll not get into an evolution vs creation debate (i think you all know what I believe in).

 webster dictionary's deffenition of invention:

1archaic : find, discover

2: to devise by thinking : fabricate

3: to produce (as something useful) for the first time through the use of the imagination or of ingenious thinking and experiment

Going by any of these deffenitions we must come to the conclusion that we have solid proof that cheater_1 is not completly human. He is in fact an experiment gone wrong... It all makes sense now.

zxzyz wrote:

It would be a gradual process with certain lines becoming forced white wins, and others  being draws.

e.g The Sicilian dragon = white wins .

I think computers can start with lines such as 1.e4 f6 - How long will it take to show that this is a forced white win? (This means there is ALWAYS a way for white to win - regardless of what black plays and these lines must be shown )

Probably not too long. ~20 years?

The potential flaw in this thinking is that the number of possible chess games is incredibly huge. Assuming that an entire chess game could be stored in a single atom, there may not be enough atoms on earth to store every possible chess game! Thus, it may not be physically possible to build a computer large enough to store the full solution to chess (even if one could be found somehow).

lanceuppercut_239 wrote:

zxzyz wrote:

It would be a gradual process with certain lines becoming forced white wins, and others  being draws.

e.g The Sicilian dragon = white wins .

I think computers can start with lines such as 1.e4 f6 - How long will it take to show that this is a forced white win? (This means there is ALWAYS a way for white to win - regardless of what black plays and these lines must be shown )

Probably not too long. ~20 years?

The potential flaw in this thinking is that the number of possible chess games is incredibly huge. Assuming that an entire chess game could be stored in a single atom, there may not be enough atoms on earth to store every possible chess game! Thus, it may not be physically possible to build a computer large enough to store the full solution to chess (even if one could be found somehow).

Yes, but we dont care about all possible games: e.g. 1. e4 f6 2.nc3 g4 3. Qh5#

After g4 we dont care what white does instead of Qh5.

Chess just needs to be solved like checkers is right now, and its done.

IN fact, even solving one variation of an opening paves the way for an eventual solution.

Of couse we always have fischer random start positions, displacement chess (King and queen interchanged for one side) and larger board chess with new pieces - so its not really the end of chess. It just depends on how chess players feel (about 50-100 yrs from now ) knowing that  a certain opening or openings are solved. Will they forget about chess without looking at the wealth of chess variants just waiting to be discovered?

deadpoetic wrote:

 webster dictionary's deffenition of invention:

1archaic : find, discover

2: to devise by thinking : fabricate

3: to produce (as something useful) for the first time through the use of the imagination or of ingenious thinking and experiment

Going by any of these deffenitions we must come to the conclusion that we have solid proof that cheater_1 is not completly human. He is in fact an experiment gone wrong... It all makes sense now.

lol

If chess were to be solved I think you would get millions of "perfect games", all draws.  I wonder how many perfect games there are?

bowanza wrote:

If chess were to be solved I think you would get millions of "perfect games", all draws.  I wonder how many perfect games there are?

just begin analysing and you will find out.

It is not a question of when, but rather a question of if. Mathematical models suggest that this is close to an impossibility for the foreseeable future. Either way, it will make little practical difference in human play. It may even enrich chess since openings now considered unsound or poor will probably still lead to a draw and thus become viable as more than surprise weapons. However, computer, centaur and correspondence play (allowing engines) will be changed dramatically.