Will computers ever solve chess? - Chess Forums - Page 164

ptd570 · 2014-01-22T11:57:20-08:00

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 the

BradleyFarms

Mar 2, 2018

0

#3261

Wisdom ain't always obtained through age.

DiogenesDue

Mar 2, 2018

0

#3262

vickalan wrote:

btickler wrote:

My position: Chess cannot be solved with current technology, nor with any reasonably foreseeable technology...

So then, how did you arrive at this conclusion?

The same way I have determined that FTL travel is not currently possible...because the laws of our universe are set in opposition to what we want to achieve, and we have no current technology or technology on deck ready to mitigate this opposition. Or, in your language...it's just obvious. Until you can show differently, that is the default, and the ultimate black and white criteria is solidly on my side: Chess is not solved, and there is no significant measurable progress in the direction of solving it. Your most "solid" work/research is from the 1950s, and even that paper is pure conjecture which hypothesizes other avenues, but cannot theorize even a single one concretely enough to actually explore. You've got nothing. Munch your leaves and pray that someone with more to offer than you comes along to rescue your position.

vickalan

Mar 2, 2018

0

#3263

Well, just because something has not been done is not proof that it cannot be done. You'll need to show some math if you want anyone to take you seriously. But you can keep talking about koalas as much as you want.😊

Junebug444

Mar 2, 2018

0

#3264

vickalan

Mar 2, 2018

0

#3265

Thanks Juny! That's hilarious!

eryxc

Mar 2, 2018

0

#3266

YouFreaking wrote:

btickler wrote:

vickalan wrote:

btickler wrote (post #4051):

Let's be clear:

My position: Chess cannot be solved with current technology, nor with any reasonably foreseeable technology.

btickler wrote (post #4571):There is no plausible reason to believe Chess can be solved in our lifetimes...

That's changing from a statement to a belief. I won't argue with your belief, although the rest of us can communicate without having a temper tantrum.

[sigh]

Ok, let me disabuse you of your perceived cleverness yet again...

Those statements are absolutely compatible. Nor is their any reason that a statement and a belief cannot co-exist. But, even if none of that were true, you are taking the 2nd quote from my "warning to other posters" post. Now, surely even you can comprehend that when crafting a warning for other people, you tailor the language to the potential readers, and attempt to address their likely thoughts/worries/responses, not your own beliefs.

You are off base, not once, but three times in a single simple premise. Oops, wait...4 times...you tried to slip by us that you screwed up the post number (and just listed post #4051 like you said that all along). Perhaps you are dyslexic. There's no shame in that. You are like a Darwin award waiting to happen in many other ways, though, and there is plenty of shame in that. You can control it.

P.S. In over 200 pages you will not find a single "temper tantrum" from me. What you will find are measured, cold, and accurate attempts to show you and others what fools you are making of yourselves, because all of the nice attempts failed long ago to pierce your veil of ignorance. I don't even mind your position, if you actually held it for any valid reasons you could state, but you don't, you and others just flail around in your complete lack of understanding of the scope of the numbers or how computers actually work. Take an assembly language class or something, anything that could remove the magic fog from your understanding of computer calculations at a low level (hardware)...you could easily educate yourself and not come across like an Astrologer at an Astronomy convention: "but Mercury can and probably is going backwards in its orbit, because it is not impossible...this is my proof of retrograde planet motions". It's not a black box.

That's the problem here, not that you think Chess can be solved by some miracle discovery in the near future, but that you can't even comprehend, much less admit, the orders of magnitude and how far off you are in your "flip a coin, heads chess is solved next week, tails it isn't" world. And in your smug ignorance, you infect other ignorant impressionables, who then spew the same "inexactitudes" that you do, like a cancer of failed human intellect.

No doubt you will read this like I am raging and stomping around, but I am not, I am as calm and rational as I am every single time I correct you out of pity for your plight and the plight of the infected. You're like a koala with an STD, blithely passing along your malady while you slowly chew your eucalyptus leaves. Pointed statements and insults are just the rolled up newspaper, because you have demonstrated so many times times that you can understand no less.

Leave the koalas out of this, you sicko!

Yay!

vickalan

Mar 2, 2018

0

#3267

Kameron9996676

Mar 2, 2018

0

#3268

Fuck chess why did I get this app then?!

shivamnimzo

Mar 2, 2018

0

#3269

I m not sure whether computer will be able to solve chess completely or not, but one thing that I m certain about is that no matter how strong a computer becomes, humans will always make those silly mistakes even after 500 years. human chess will always remain same full of errors.

DiogenesDue

Mar 2, 2018

0

#3270

vickalan wrote:

Well, just because something has not been done is not proof that it cannot be done. You'll need to show some math if you want anyone to take you seriously. But you can keep talking about koalas as much as you want.😊

Burden of proof. On your side. Again. Still. Always. Reality is on my side.

vickalan

Mar 2, 2018

0

#3271

We were having too much fun with the koalas but since you asked the position that it might be possible to solve chess is prima facie. The number of mathematical operations to solve chess is unknown, and therefore nobody can say how much time it would require.

troy7915

Mar 3, 2018

0

#3272

shivamnimzo wrote:

I m not sure whether computer will be able to solve chess completely or not, but one thing that I m certain about is that no matter how strong a computer becomes, humans will always make those silly mistakes even after 500 years. human chess will always remain same full of errors.

Interesting point. That’s only possible because a human cannot memorize all the ‘less-than perfect-variants’, that accompany a forced win for either side or draw. Even a computer demonstration of a forced result will take who knows how many years of proving that demonstration to be correct.

So that’s it. It is irrelevant whether computers solve chess or not. The game can still be played by humans until the end of time!

pawn8888

Mar 3, 2018

0

#3273

I don't think chess is all that complicated. It was created using 8 x 8 or 64 squares, this is because if it was 10 x 10 or 100 squares no one could figure it out. A chess puzzle often has 20 pieces on the board but there is only 1 correct answer. It's like golf, you can hit the ball a million different places, but the goal is a hole in one. In other words the point of the game is to win in the least number of moves.

troy7915

Mar 3, 2018

0

#3274

288 billion different possible positions after four moves apiece! Not difficult enough?

lfPatriotGames

Mar 3, 2018

0

#3275

troy7915 wrote:

288 billion different possible positions after four moves apiece! Not difficult enough?

That sounds about like the number of different places your ball could be after the first 4 shots in a round of golf. Both are pretty difficult. Maybe he meant it's not complicated because it's such a limited number of ways the pieces can move. The number of ways a golf ball can end up in trouble seems almost infinite sometimes.

eryxc

Mar 3, 2018

0

#3276

Kameron9996676 wrote:

Fuck chess why did I get this app then?!

Idk

DiogenesDue

Mar 3, 2018

0

#3277

vickalan wrote:

We were having too much fun with the koalas but since you asked the position that it might be possible to solve chess is prima facie. The number of mathematical operations to solve chess is unknown, and therefore nobody can say how much time it would require.

Yes, you've said this half a dozen times now...just because you are a broken record doesn't mean you have an actual point.

troy7915

Mar 3, 2018

0

#3278

lfPatriotGames wrote:

troy7915 wrote:

288 billion different possible positions after four moves apiece! Not difficult enough?

That sounds about like the number of different places your ball could be after the first 4 shots in a round of golf. Both are pretty difficult. Maybe he meant it's not complicated because it's such a limited number of ways the pieces can move. The number of ways a golf ball can end up in trouble seems almost infinite sometimes.

It’s a closed system. Granted. But it’s still extremely complex.

vickalan

Mar 3, 2018

0

#3279

btickler wrote:

...you've said this half a dozen times now...

You asked again (#4607) so I answered again.

DiogenesDue

Mar 3, 2018

0

#3280

vickalan wrote:

btickler wrote:

...you've said this half a dozen times now...

You asked again (#4607) so I answered again.

Except your response is not an "answer" to my post. It's only an opportunity to throw a Latin term around to impress people that did not take 3 years of Latin.