I really don't think there's a sequence of moves out there that always leads to a win. And strategy can vary too much to be 100% reliable. But chess is rather equal. There's always a way for the other to refute. What would be amazing is that if they did find a way for one side to always win, if that side were black.
When do you think chess will be solved?
Sort:
Feb 20, 2017
0
#43
TRextastic wrote:
I really don't think there's a sequence of moves out there that always leads to a win. And strategy can vary too much to be 100% reliable. But chess is rather equal. There's always a way for the other to refute. What would be amazing is that if they did find a way for one side to always win, if that side were black.
Solving chess isn't finding the solution to always win it, it could also be that the perfect game always ends with a draw (that's how i think it would end, but maybe not, who knows?).
FutureRain wrote:
TRextastic wrote:
I really don't think there's a sequence of moves out there that always leads to a win. And strategy can vary too much to be 100% reliable. But chess is rather equal. There's always a way for the other to refute. What would be amazing is that if they did find a way for one side to always win, if that side were black.
Solving chess isn't finding the solution to always win it, it could also be that the perfect game always ends with a draw (that's how i think it would end, but maybe not, who knows?).
Aren't computers already there?
Feb 20, 2017
0
#45
TRextastic wrote:
FutureRain wrote:
TRextastic wrote:
I really don't think there's a sequence of moves out there that always leads to a win. And strategy can vary too much to be 100% reliable. But chess is rather equal. There's always a way for the other to refute. What would be amazing is that if they did find a way for one side to always win, if that side were black.
Solving chess isn't finding the solution to always win it, it could also be that the perfect game always ends with a draw (that's how i think it would end, but maybe not, who knows?).
Aren't computers already there?
Yes, but they still didnt solve chess
FutureRain wrote:
TRextastic wrote:
FutureRain wrote:
TRextastic wrote:
I really don't think there's a sequence of moves out there that always leads to a win. And strategy can vary too much to be 100% reliable. But chess is rather equal. There's always a way for the other to refute. What would be amazing is that if they did find a way for one side to always win, if that side were black.
Solving chess isn't finding the solution to always win it, it could also be that the perfect game always ends with a draw (that's how i think it would end, but maybe not, who knows?).
Aren't computers already there?
Yes, but they still didnt solve chess
Wait, so you're saying that solving chess involves playing the best possible move in every situation. And you agreed that computers can do it, but then state that chess haven't been solved? I don't think I know what answer you are expecting/looking for, to answer your question! 
^ Same. A computer can always play to a draw. And he claims that's what he's looking for.
Feb 20, 2017
0
#48
R3D6R0P1ET wrote:
FutureRain wrote:
TRextastic wrote:
FutureRain wrote:
TRextastic wrote:
I really don't think there's a sequence of moves out there that always leads to a win. And strategy can vary too much to be 100% reliable. But chess is rather equal. There's always a way for the other to refute. What would be amazing is that if they did find a way for one side to always win, if that side were black.
Solving chess isn't finding the solution to always win it, it could also be that the perfect game always ends with a draw (that's how i think it would end, but maybe not, who knows?).
Aren't computers already there?
Yes, but they still didnt solve chess
Wait, so you're saying that solving chess involves playing the best possible move in every situation. And you agreed that computers can do it, but then state that chess haven't been solved? I don't think I know what answer you are expecting/looking for, to answer your question!
I said that? Well, if i did (which i think i didnt) i meant computers that solved it (that will maybe exist in the future)
You described what you meant by solving chess. I said, aren't computers already there? And you said yes and no, simultaneously.
But regardless of what you said, you still haven't explained what you're looking for. You keep describing games that will always end in a draw. Computers can do that. If each side plays the absolute best move according to the computer, it will end in a draw.
But here, if you won't listen to us, here is an expert, in-depth analysis of why chess is a drawn game at its core: https://www.quora.com/Is-chess-a-draw-with-perfect-play-by-both-players
I think what you really want to know is when computers will have played out every single game possible.
A computer is already in development to solve chess. It's called the 2Q1C
Feb 20, 2017
0
#52
to dirty the argument by language is funny - I think I thought I runned away - 7 billion people they have thoughts and opinions - I respect that and expect people to do the same for me - my opinion of chess strategy and tactics - to me it is a joke - war - one guy with pistol and one grenade in stalingrad against guy with rifle - four months in Kursk over 10 thousand tanks and in four months cllose to one million soldier dead - that is strategy - - - - guy with gun tactics - generals looking at map STRATEGY - - - in human war there is a big difference - - in chess there is no difference between the two - speaking out loud I think anyone talking about a difference of strategy and tactics in chess is not too bright - because to me there is NO difference - as in wow that last move was great strategy or a great tactic - get bent - -all of the moves are one in the same as in each move is both - - - - like it erks me to no end - - - like Canadians in WW2 had to follow general staff orders to the tee or else - - Germans got general orders = take that whatever destroy that whatever - the biggest boss on the spot had the freedom to decide - stukas / tanks / he 111 / artillery / guys with flamethrowers ? - - well a historian could look at the specific incident and clarify or analyse or get insight using one of two words in his thesis - strategy or tactics - - - - - - his words trying to make sense and understand the battle or what ever - - - - the term has no meaning and does not help chess - oh and getting all the pieces in the middle is strategy ? - - I get all my pieces in the middle other guys are in the back - - then I will strategy his front side and tactic his backside and then tactic and strategy inside out and backwards and then may be do it again - wow - so master scratched his chin and moved a piece OBVIOUS TACTIC - - so chess master scratched his nose then moved a piece that there was OBVIOUS STRATEGY - - - O kay - my strategy and tactics involving chess all involve B G B G N L - BY GUESS BY GOLLY N LUCK
( I wrote this rant because on guy posted a comment on my previous post saying one sentence referring to both people trying to get pieces in the middle is STRATEGY ????? ------ WHAT THE HECK ????????- post is about will chess be solved why dirty the analysis by tossing strategy and tactics in there - plus in war there is a difference - in chess I think THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE
Feb 20, 2017
0
#53
It's been solved, some wiseguy figured out that checkmate ends the game.
NEVER! Our sun will explode before it is solved. The planets will evaporate before it is solved.
FutureRain wrote:
R3D6R0P1ET wrote:
erzangel wrote:
Chess is solved already: The solution is 42.
I don't think it will ever be solved. Each person is unique in their own way. The solution to chess will have to be a solution to all the games EVER and ANY possible opponent. Not everyone will play the best move - since not everyone will see it. And how would this solution work against someone who doesn't know anything about chess, except how the pieces move?
There are just too many things to take into account - leading me to the conclusion that there won't ever be a solution.
That being said, erzangel's answer seems accurate!
Solving chess doesn't mean finding the perfect game, it means finding the perfect move in each possible chess position. So if your playing with a computer program that knows the solution to chess, if you don't do a perfect move, that means that the computer will win the game.
You assume there is only one perfect move for each position. But there are many perfect moves for almost all positions.
Feb 20, 2017
0
#56
ah ponz! you've basically obliterated years of chess.com threads with that! I was hoping nobody would ever say it.
I solved it on my mac. The initial position is zugzwang. Who knew?
Jun 17, 2017
0
#60
My guess is it will solved in this, the 21st Century. But just as a non-book move can cause a player who doesn't understand opening principles and strategies to lose, even though he's memorized every book variation, I don't think that knowing the line that forces a win through absolute best moves by both sides will have much effect on the outcome og human chess.
Additionally, I look at the engines as the equivalents of cars that can run faster than humans or machines that can kick or hit a ball much farther than humans. It doesn't detract from the human accomplishment.
every mathematician and chess player will disagree with me but I believe it is already solved - like fifty kabillion permutations and combinations BUT - (bearing in mind I only got 60 percent average in high school and college this is my humble opinion ) - BUT at the start only the middle two pawns or one of the two knights will probably be moved ) that eliminates 1 kabillion permutations and combinations - then both players will try to get all the power pieces into the middle to maximize the squares the pieces can control or threaten ( that eliminates another 2 kabillion permutations and combinations - then now in the middle game - half of the kamakazi pieces were kilt - leaving about half the pieces remaining - that elimates another 1 or 2 kabillion permutations and combinations - then with the remaining pieces - there are another 1 or 2 kabillion permutations eliminated because on looking at any middle game THE NUMBER OF STUPID SQUARES TO OCCUPY VASTLY OUTNUMBER the good logical possible squares that have to be considered as possible good squares to move to - then finally in the end game another kabillion permutations and combinations are eliminated simply because you generally left with one six man seal team battling an enemy team of possible similar number - so few pieces left at the end game means at that point THERE IS NO LONGER a kabillion possible moves possible - - I think and believe that at this point in time - chess masters have already solved chess to a practical extent ( provided they are not put up against a super chess computer ) - - - I think and believe Bobby Fischer was a walking chess engine - and he for sure solved chess - and got bored of the game - hence making that " swear word swear word swear word chess 96o or whatever it is called - as for a rebuttal - I do not care - I believe every math guy and chess guy will disagree with what I just wrote - bottom line - I believe that bobby fischer and guys and girls as good as him already for all practical purposes SOLVED CHESS - to the extent that humans can - I also believe there will never be another Robert Fischer - I believe he had a chess engine between his ears where other normal people have a brain ==== when people talk about the fifty kabillion combination I smile because it reminds me of that futurama episode where two robots are playing chess - and one says something to the effect THAT I HAVE CHECKMATE IN FIFTY KABILLION MOVES - and then the other robot says something to the effect OH RATS I LOST AGAIN
Solving chess means finding the tactic solution to the chess game - the hardest chess problem/tactic. No strategy is necessary (what you mentioned of controlling the center...) to solve problems/tactics.