x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

Will computers ever solve chess?

  • #1

    Will there ever be a computer strong enough to solve chess to the point where white uses its half tempo advantage to always beat black no matter what moves black plays (in otherwords the same computer can never win with black even after a thousand random games against itself)

     

    I beleive one day there will be a computer so strong and so big that it will solve chess completely but perhaps that is 50 or 100 years off, its possible to solve it but we may never see it even in a 100 years

  • #2

     in the next 30-40 years no, 100-200 who cares? i mean none of us will be alive then.

  • #3

    Probably, but the number of forced winning variations needed to prove any conclusions would be so astronomical that the net effect on OTB play would be zero.  Although the psychological effect of knowing for certain you're just playing improper chess, no matter how good you are, may be enough to fairly well kill the game off as a major attraction.  Checkers died a swift death after being solved.

    It would, of course, be the instantaneous death of correspondence chess.

  • #4

    I think chess computers will not solve chess entirely

    Computers db will only store winning moves.

    for example e4 e5 Nf3 f6

    as f6 is a losing move there is no need to store any moves beyond f6 other than to mark f6 as bad. I assume it is losing as Damiamo Defence is weak.

    like backgammon it doesn't contain losing positions.

    the downside is that you would still have to bruteforce if you wanted a computer to look at a losing position.

  • #5

    <CP6033>

    Its intriguing to me to know whether or not it will be done with our intellect and our manmade software...I'm sure there is a solution to solve it, but will us humans be able to do. Doesnt that intrigue you CP6033 or is it totaly uninteresting because we will be dead and gone then. With that type of philosiphy why should we explore space or why should we try to conserve or avoid polluting etc.etc...we wont be around to bear the consiquences. I guess that is the mentality that will ultimately put our species to sleep for good, the who cares we wont be alive then attitude.

    I wonder about these inevatabilities my friend

  • #6

    no

  • #7

    Who says we won't be alive?  People are living longer these days and gene therapy has potential to stall and maybe even reverse aging somewhat. 

  • #8

    they already did

  • #9

    Sadly yes. It may take some years, but the technology advances all the time, and if today's computer need 200 years to solve chess completley, in 10 years the will need 50 years, and maybe in some time solving games like chess will be something that every 8 years old kid can do with his personal computer at home.

    But the answer is for sure, yes.

  • #10

    This has been asked and talked about before.  The answer is no.

     

    ifoody wrote:

    Sadly yes. It may take some years, but the technology advances all the time, and if today's computer need 200 years to solve chess completley, in 10 years the will need 50 years, and maybe in some time solving games like chess will be something that every 8 years old kid can do with his personal computer at home.

    But the answer is for sure, yes.

    The problem with that logic is they currently need an absurd number like 10^50 years.  So in the future, when it gets 100x faster, they'll only need 10^48 years, and in the very far far far future, only 10^40 years.

    And then there's the impracticality (more like impossibility) of storing the solution.

    e.g. a little quiz.  If every position + its evaluation only took 1 bit of storage space, and every bit could be stored in the size of an atom, then how big would the storage device be?

    A) Bigger than the moon.
    B) Bigger than the sun.
    C) More atoms than our solar system.
    D) More atoms than our galaxy.

  • #11
    ptd570 wrote:

    Will there ever be a computer strong enough to solve chess to the point where white uses its half tempo advantage to always beat black no matter what moves black plays (in otherwords the same computer can never win with black even after a thousand random games against itself)

    You're assuming chess is a first-player win.  I, for one, believe chess is a draw with perfect play on both sides.

  • #12

    I'm guessing D, but quantum computers are cool, so they should be able to do it, and yes, chess is clearly a draw.

  • #13
    waffllemaster wrote:

    This has been asked and talked about before.  The answer is no.

     

    ifoody wrote:

    Sadly yes. It may take some years, but the technology advances all the time, and if today's computer need 200 years to solve chess completley, in 10 years the will need 50 years, and maybe in some time solving games like chess will be something that every 8 years old kid can do with his personal computer at home.

    But the answer is for sure, yes.

    The problem with that logic is they currently need an absurd number like 10^50 years.  So in the future, when it gets 100x faster, they'll only need 10^48 years, and in the very far far far future, only 10^40 years.

    And then there's the impracticality (more like impossibility) of storing the solution.

    e.g. a little quiz.  If every position + its evaluation only took 1 bit of storage space, and every bit could be stored in the size of an atom, then how big would the storage device be?

    A) Bigger than the moon.
    B) Bigger than the sun.
    C) More atoms than our solar system.
    D) More atoms than our galaxy.

    Answer is none of the above- More atoms than in the universe.  

  • #14

    Would be an neat first question to ask on passing through the Pearly Gates - does White always win with perfect play?

    The answer would probably be: we don't know yet, but there are millions of guys in the Other Place working on it 24/7.

  • #15

    It will be the year 2263 on August 17. At about 4:37 pm. 

    You're welcome.

    Regards, Damon.

  • #16
    glyptodons wrote:

    I'm guessing D, but quantum computers are cool, so they should be able to do it, and yes, chess is clearly a draw.

    Yeah, in theory they can do stuff fast.  Need a number of breakthroughs first, one of which would be some kind of chess solving algorithm... which is... not going to happen Tongue Out

    But again we come to the problem of storing the information.

  • #17
    Fixing_A_Hole wrote:
    waffllemaster wrote:

    This has been asked and talked about before.  The answer is no.

     

    ifoody wrote:

    Sadly yes. It may take some years, but the technology advances all the time, and if today's computer need 200 years to solve chess completley, in 10 years the will need 50 years, and maybe in some time solving games like chess will be something that every 8 years old kid can do with his personal computer at home.

    But the answer is for sure, yes.

    The problem with that logic is they currently need an absurd number like 10^50 years.  So in the future, when it gets 100x faster, they'll only need 10^48 years, and in the very far far far future, only 10^40 years.

    And then there's the impracticality (more like impossibility) of storing the solution.

    e.g. a little quiz.  If every position + its evaluation only took 1 bit of storage space, and every bit could be stored in the size of an atom, then how big would the storage device be?

    A) Bigger than the moon.
    B) Bigger than the sun.
    C) More atoms than our solar system.
    D) More atoms than our galaxy.

    Answer is none of the above- More atoms than in the universe.  

    Wouldn't it technically be all of the above? ^_^

  • #18
    MrDamonSmith wrote:

    It will be the year 2263 on August 17. At about 4:37 pm. 

    You're welcome.

    Regards, Damon.

    Hahahaha...I like the optimism. But unfortunately we wont even be here my friend, not just you or me, but humans in general.

    So before we go, lets get to the bottom of it (chess).

    Like <wafflemaster> wrote: If every position + its evaluation only took 1 bit of storage space, and every bit could be stored in the size of an atom, then how big would the storage device be?

    A) Bigger than the moon.
    B) Bigger than the sun.
    C) More atoms than our solar system.
    D) More atoms than our galaxy.

    actually more bits than the observable universe has atoms I think so with that being said the discussion is officially OVER! NO we will never solve chess, only your creator has the key to that solution. How nice would it be to play PERFECT. Heres the next question then...Does perfect play resulut in white winning because of moving first or would all games be drawn with perfect play...I used to think they would end in draws but on second thought there must be some miniscule advantage to moving first that a super computer could capitalize on 100% of the time. Correct?

  • #19

    Shannon number. Less bits than atoms in the known universe. About half. (in an average 40 move game)

     

    (ps, 6 piece endgames are solved for all positions. The size of the database? Around 100 TB.

  • #20

    "I used to think they would end in draws but on second thought there must be some miniscule advantage to moving first that a super computer could capitalize on 100% of the time. Correct?"

    No it wouldn't be significant enough.  A plus over an equal side means that white is slightly better, but with accurate play black should equalize by force.  The initiative has to fizzle out sometime.  Miniscule advantage don't lead to wins, but an accumulation of small advantages. 

Top

Online Now