That assertion appeared about 3000 posts ago.
Advance something original, please.
Will computers ever solve chess?
Sort:
I think it's possible AI or neural networks might be involved in solving chess (if and when it is solved). But their conclusions will need secondary analysis.
One example of AI helping in big problems is the recent discovery of a star which has eight planets (same number as our solar system). The amount of data collected in space is so vast - no human can sift through it or understand it. So neural networks were used and "Keplar-90" was found. Our best telescopes were then used to confirm the discovery - and yes, there is such a star-system (the first discovered with 8 planets).
Wiki article: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler-90)
Chess might be solved in this same way. If employed, and allowed to work on the problem for some time, it may announce once side has a forced mate. It would then need to be confirmed, for example by testing every possible refutation. If the game is not too long, confirming a (single) forced mate might be within the capability of existing computers. Is it guaranteed to happen? No. Possible: Yes.
vickalan wrote:
btickler wrote:
The quote I gave is the relevant quote for the point *I* was making. The only reason I leveraged "facile" is because it shows the hypocrisy of his opinion of the too-simple "other side" of the argument versus his own too-simple and completely unsupported assertion...
You leveraged facile because it went against your already lost argument that brute force is the only way to evaluate chess. Others moved on a long time ago, while you're still stuck at pre-Shannon (1949) game knowledge.
Lol...you are the one who has repeatedly used Shannon's paper as if it were some kind of proof that there are non-brute force methods for solving chess (it's nothing of the kind)...so let's cut the hypocrisy, old man 
,
chessspy1 wrote:
Hi David,
Yes, I made a lot of assumptions.I felt it was easier to understand if I used concrete numbers but all I was trying to show was that the complete and total number of possible moves in a game of chess, which is a very large number is not necessarily a barrier to a computer solving the game.
What I was trying to show was that as some possibilities which are known to lose, or lead to a clearly inferior position from the opening can be discounted, and a lot of endgame positions are solved, the total number of positions which need to be tried are far fewer than one might at first suppose, and if Moores law is still holding then at some point, with the number of unratified positions becoming less and less, then at some point in the future chess which is necesariiy static as far as the number of moves posible to win is concerned then inevitably chess will follow tic tac toe and checkers.
You aren't really too bright, are you? Every recorded game of chess ever played by mankind and engines to this point in history is far fewer than 1 trillionth of 1 trillionth of 1 percent of possible games. You have no concept of the orders of magnitude involved. It's completely beyond you, or anyone else who says we can just cull the numbers to something reasonable by eliminating "obviously losing positions". Even if you eliminate 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 out of every 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 positions (clearly, ermm...unlikely), you would still have to evaluate about 10^20 positions.
P.S. Moore's Law was declared DOA years ago. Please catch up...maybe put down the CB radio.
A working Quantum computer will solve this. 5-10 years
It’s positionals that it will struggle with
Do watch it with the insults btickler.
Nope, it will always draw w/ perfecto play
btickler wrote:
...you are the one who has repeatedly used Shannon's paper as if it were some kind of proof that there are non-brute force methods for solving chess...
Not correct. Shannon's paper probably is cited in more acadamic and scholarly papers on the topic of solving chess than any other paper in academia. Btw: Brute force is a basic and simple method to solve problems. It might appear esoteric and complicated to you because it is inefficient, but that doesn't make the method complex. It may serve you well to read his paper.
s23bog wrote:
The brute force method uses no means of deciding which moves to discard. None are discarded. It is the most simple and direct approach...
Well said - It's just too inefficient to use by itself for chess. Everyone else has moved along a long time ago. Except apparently btickler.
vickalan wrote:
btickler wrote:
...you are the one who has repeatedly used Shannon's paper as if it were some kind of proof that there are non-brute force methods for solving chess...
Not correct. Shannon's paper probably is cited in more acadamic and scholarly papers on the topic of solving chess than any other paper in academia. Btw: Brute force is a basic and simple method to solve problems. It might appear esoteric and complicated to you because it is inefficient, but that doesn't make the method complex. It may serve you well to read his paper.
I've already read it, as we established ago the last time or two you trotted out his paper and waved it around...
vickalan wrote:
s23bog wrote:
The brute force method uses no means of deciding which moves to discard. None are discarded. It is the most simple and direct approach...
Well said - It's just too inefficient to use by itself for chess. Everyone else has moved along a long time ago. Except apparently btickler.
Completely wrong...there is "pruning" of any positions that can be established to make a win impossible...this was also established long ago. It's just that that number or pruned positions is insignificant compared to the total number of positions. You guys need to eat more fish or take Omega-3 supplements so you can actually remember what you talked about last year...
Jan 31, 2018
0
#2756
I think it would always be a win for white because white dictates the game. Which means that when whites moves, unless a mistake is made, it's more powerful than black. Eventually leading to a certain win.
Jan 31, 2018
0
#2757
yes, my computer would definitely solve. just that I did not understand yet, how to convince it to do it. 
btickler wrote:
...It's just that that number or pruned positions is insignificant compared to the total number of positions...
And do you remember the part where not all positions of chess need to be examined to solve the game?
vickalan wrote:
btickler wrote:
...It's just that that number or pruned positions is insignificant compared to the total number of positions...
And do you remember the part where not all positions of chess need to be examined to solve the game?
Yes...hello...the statement you quoted makes that quite clear, even without your misbegotten tree graphs.
The answer is simple. YES.
The future is quantum computers. Centuries away maybe, but one day they´ll be a reality. And they´ll definitely be able to solve chess.