People keep talking about how many possible positions there are in chess, like that is some kind of barrier. It is not. The positions are woven together like a great fabric.
You can look up at a mountain and talk about how impossible it is to climb for ages. It doesn't get you closer to the top.
Alright, I anxiously await your solution to chess, with proof. Other open problems include calculating pi to the last digit. Have at it.
You should learn patience.
Me? That's for sure. After all, I am now waiting for the solution to chess. It could take years!
It takes a strange definition of "open problem" to say that calculating pi to the last digit is an open problem. It was proved in 1761 that pi is irrational, so it doesn't have a last digit.
If you want to work on an open problem, try to prove the Riemann hypothesis. Succeeding at that will win you a million dollar prize.
If you want to be a Grandmaster easily, play 4D Chess. You are a GM for sure as I don't believe there are any other players.
It takes a strange definition of "open problem" to say that calculating pi to the last digit is an open problem. It was proved in 1761 that pi is irrational, so it doesn't have a last digit.
If you want to work on an open problem, try to prove the Riemann hypothesis. Succeeding at that will win you a million dollar prize.
It was sarcasm. I needed something "harder" than solving chess. That is, something actually provably impossible. Reimann's Hypothis falls short, I think, because it probably can be proved or disproved.
Nothing is "harder" than 4D Chess, There is a good chance no one even knows the moves. There are no solutions if you don't know the moves. That has got to be more impossible than Pie or Reimann or chess as you know it.
Nothing is "harder" than 4D Chess, There is a good chance no one even knows the moves. There are no solutions if you don't know the moves. That has got to be more impossible than Pie or Reimann or chess as you know it.
A solution for all n x n x . . . x n chess (which has n dimensions) is harder 
Leaping off topic inspired by that I was once told by a topologist that in some senses the topology of 3 and 4 dimensions is more complicated than that of higher dimensions.
While this is intuitively implausible sounding, one example is that knots only exist in 3 dimensions: in higher dimensions, all knots can be unknotted! Another key fact is that all homotopy groups except the first are abelian.
Thanks Elroch and 0110... . Interesting about knots, the same thing is true about N preons, they first exist in 3D because of their timing. That's way we live in a 3D universe. I did't bring up 6D or 11D chess because for 6D you need a building for the board with 8 rooms per floor and 8 floors and for 11 D chess a solar system is needed. Each time one moves a pawn one has to go to a different planet. Gets tirersome soon. Maybe that's 12 D, I don't play those high order games.
Leaping off topic inspired by that I was once told by a topologist that in some senses the topology of 3 and 4 dimensions is more complicated than that of higher dimensions.
While this is intuitively implausible sounding, one example is that knots only exist in 3 dimensions: in higher dimensions, all knots can be unknotted! Another key fact is that all homotopy groups except the first are abelian.
The fact that there are more regular polytopes in 3 and 4 dimensions relates to this too, I presume.
A question some people might find more pertinent is, Will computers solve chess in my lifetime? In my case, I'm convinced I know the answer to that one. Your mileage may vary.
I find it kind of incredulous that after 23 pages of people whining about how difficult this problem is, no one has come up with an approach as to how to use computers to solve chess.
I was thinking yesterday about this, and was wondering about the representation of the board. I am wondering if improvements could be made. I am thinking about the number of pieces that control each square. Kings (and marginally rooks for castling) and pawns need to be taken into account, but the first two ranks from the starting position are pretty clear.
01111110
11144111
After 23 pages the reasons should be clear you'd think, this is not whining but logic, what is so difficult to understand about the problem of storing more positions than the atoms in the universe using the atoms we find on earth? If you can come up with an approach for this, be my guest, it will make you filthy rich.
Of course engines already do the things you mention, square control is a basic positional factor including king safety etc, and board representations are incredibly clever and optimized, you may want to read up on this (chess programming wiki contains loads of information). If you think you can improve, download the Stockfish source code and rewrite it with an additional 100 ELO.
In dimensions greater than 3, there would be a lot of room for queens, rooks etc. They wouldn't control the board as they do in dimension 2. It would be a totally different game.
I find it kind of incredulous that after 23 pages of people whining about how difficult this problem is, no one has come up with an approach as to how to use computers to solve chess.
I was thinking yesterday about this, and was wondering about the representation of the board. I am wondering if improvements could be made. I am thinking about the number of pieces that control each square. Kings (and marginally rooks for castling) and pawns need to be taken into account, but the first two ranks from the starting position are pretty clear.
01111110
11144111
Welcome to 25 years ago... ;)
...maybe even 35, thinking about it some more.
Your suggestion is not unlike a Physics 101 student suggesting how to tweak a particle accelerator.
There are ideas, and those who implement ideas. I am more interested in the former, rather than the latter.
Translation: don't tell me about the details, I think Pi is not infinite, and that's my idea...make it happen.
Here is a question that comes to mind using the method I suggested of storing positions:
What is the greatest number of pieces that can exert pressure on a single square?
Per side, or total? About 16 total in a "legal" position, if I recall (18 if you count "indirect" pressure). That route is not going to take you anywhere...
There is plenty of storage space for every position, it just is being used for other stuff, right now.
Hahaha
Chess takes up a "big" amount of space, and all the computers on earth represent a "big" amount of storage right?
But this is not how it works 
[I'm not] interested in traditional calculation methods.
I have compared chess to fabric . . . If we look at the whole fabric of positions, we may be able to see the map that is written on the fabric.
Excuse me, I didn't realize you were going for a philosophical solution
As for the position that btickler gave, regarding the maximum number of pieces exerting pressure on a single square, you are short by a few, at least. There can be quite a few more pieces as there are pawns to promote.
Blah blah blah...in this position for "direct" pressure, you can add 4 knights via promotion, for "indirect" pressure, you can also add 7 more Queens (or bishops or rooks).
None of this means diddly, because you don't have an actual way to make this fact work for you in terms of solving chess.
You're exactly like an armchair physicist with 2 college classes and a few blog readings under your belt commenting on string theory.
If I may try to help here. The computer does NOT need a big memory, that is solved by recording results in a file/files . The problem there is that it may require some time to search the files. There is a draw for sure (most likely). Let White move and now there are 20 moves for Black. It's pretty hard not to have one that with "best" moves won't lead to a draw. A way to know is to do them all. But so what, switch from chess to tit tat toe. Do the same thing..... So what ! OR switch to 4 dimensional chess, now you have a REAL problem, but so what. (unless you are very interested in 4D Chess) The rule on how to set the 8 3D boards up is very easy ! But the computer and program will take longer, I am sure.