Will computers ever solve chess?

Sort:
ponz111
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:

How about a game you claim both side played with no errors and ended in a draw?

You know very well i have already answered this question in the other forum. However I will give one such game here:



How did you determine a future computer that solved chess won’t find that 3...Nf6 loses by force?

Because i know enough about chess to know that will never happen. 

[there is other evidence also but what i state here is enough]

USArmyParatrooper
ponz111 wrote:

The problem with this is we have been defining "perfect game"

Also humans do not usually play perfect games. But how well or poorly humans play games has nothing to do with "solving chess"

In other words  perfect games can be played by accident.

Also the best chess computers do not play perfectly. [they are getting close however]

It CAN be yes. But you have no way of knowing if it ever has.

 

At BEST you can give dumbed down games where only a few obvious moves were played, and even THEN you can only say some of the moves PROBABLY were not errors.

ponz111
godsofhell1235 wrote:

So it seems to me the only objective way to judge a perfect game is the way a tablebase would see it. Moves either maintain the evaluation (win, draw), or they make it worse (draw, loss)

I agree with this.

USArmyParatrooper
ponz111 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:

How about a game you claim both side played with no errors and ended in a draw?

You know very well i have already answered this question in the other forum. However I will give one such game here:



How did you determine a future computer that solved chess won’t find that 3...Nf6 loses by force?

Because i know enough about chess to know that will never happen. 

[there is other evidence also but what i state here is enough]

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant is guilty. This is proven because I know enough about law to know he’s guilty”

 

“And also there’s other evidence if you dig through my blog”

 

Cool story, Bro. 👍

ponz111
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
ponz111 wrote:

The problem with this is we have been defining "perfect game"

Also humans do not usually play perfect games. But how well or poorly humans play games has nothing to do with "solving chess"

In other words  perfect games can be played by accident.

Also the best chess computers do not play perfectly. [they are getting close however]

It CAN be yes. But you have no way of knowing if it ever has.

 

At BEST you can give dumbed down games where only a few obvious moves were played, and even THEN you can only say some of the moves PROBABLY were not errors.

NO WRONG you cannot speak for me. I say that in the short game i gave there were no mistakes [we are talking about mistakes-not errors--"errors" is ambiguous--we are taking about mistakes which would change the outcome of the game.]

godsofhell1235

Looks perfect to me.

And they're not even titled players

 

ponz111

A lot of this opinion has to do with chess judgments and chess evaluations and i am quite satisfied with my own prowess. 

godsofhell1235

I mean... obviously the game I posted isn't good in a practical sense, if you need to win.

But the way a 32 man tablebase would see it, all the moves were good.

USArmyParatrooper
godsofhell1235 wrote:

Looks perfect to me.

And they're not even titled players

 

How did you determine they are perfect? How did you determine that nowhere along the way a (theoritical) computer that solved chess wouldn’t find a win by force, for either side, anywhere along the way?

godsofhell1235
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:

Looks perfect to me.

And they're not even titled players

 

How did you determine they are perfect? How did you determine that nowhere along the way a (theoritical) computer that solved chess wouldn’t find a win by force, for either side, anywhere along the way?

It's a good question.

How do I know for sure the sun will rise tomorrow?

How do I know for sure how old I am?

I'd put my certainty that the game I posted was always a draw somewhere in between those (I'm more certain the sun will rise than how old I am).

USArmyParatrooper
ponz111 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
ponz111 wrote:

The problem with this is we have been defining "perfect game"

Also humans do not usually play perfect games. But how well or poorly humans play games has nothing to do with "solving chess"

In other words  perfect games can be played by accident.

Also the best chess computers do not play perfectly. [they are getting close however]

It CAN be yes. But you have no way of knowing if it ever has.

 

At BEST you can give dumbed down games where only a few obvious moves were played, and even THEN you can only say some of the moves PROBABLY were not errors.

NO WRONG you cannot speak for me. I say that in the short game i gave there were no mistakes [we are talking about mistakes-not errors--"errors" is ambiguous--we are taking about mistakes which would change the outcome of the game.]

Okay, fine. You can say it. But I can say there’s a Staypuft marshmallow man living on Mars. 

 

In the context of the thread topic (solving chess) the difference between a mistake and error are semantics. There is only forced mate or draw by force.

ponz111

I will agree the game above looks like perfect game and seems to have no game changing mistakes by either side.

godsofhell1235

After you study enough you can be pretty certain.

Humans aren't perfect, but we do have real knowledge about chess.

Just think, calculating maybe at the speed of 1 position per second, and on average looking maybe 6-10 moves deep, a top GM can play the computer's choice ~7 out of 10 moves... and the computer is looking at 100s of millions of positions per second. There's no way we could do that without knowing a few things. For real knowing, not guesses tongue.png

ponz111

USArmy if you say there is a Staypuft marshmallow man living on Mars you would be very probably wrong. [and the thing is--you would know what you say is not true]

USArmyParatrooper
godsofhell1235 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:

Looks perfect to me.

And they're not even titled players

 

How did you determine they are perfect? How did you determine that nowhere along the way a (theoritical) computer that solved chess wouldn’t find a win by force, for either side, anywhere along the way?

It's a good question.

How do I know for sure the sun will rise tomorrow?

How do I know for sure how old I am?

I'd put my certainty that the game I posted was always a draw somewhere in between those (I'm more certain the sun will rise than how old I am).

I have actual evidence the Sun will rise. Shall I articulate it? 

 

What evidence do you have to support your position?

USArmyParatrooper
godsofhell1235 wrote:

After you study enough you can be pretty certain.

Humans aren't perfect, but we do have real knowledge about chess.

Just think, calculating maybe at the speed of 1 position per second, and on average looking maybe 6-10 moves deep, a top GM can play the computer's choice ~7 out of 10 moves... and the computer is looking at 100s of millions of positions per second. There's no way we could do that without knowing a few things. For real knowing, not guesses

And they still lose to each other. Which means they make blunders and they misevaluate positions.

 

Hundreds of millions of positions? One mathematician (conservatively) estimated there are 1 (and a 120 zeros after it) game variations.

godsofhell1235

Definitely computers aren't perfect... but it's like running nearly as fast as a car, you'd have to be ridiculously strong. Sure planes go faster, but the point is it's pretty damn good.

The top 10 players play chess pretty damn well. I guess that's my point.

USArmyParatrooper
godsofhell1235 wrote:

Definitely computers aren't perfect... but it's like running nearly as fast as a car, you'd have to be ridiculously strong. Sure planes go faster, but the point is it's pretty damn good.

The top 10 players play chess pretty damn well. I guess that's my point.

I’m not doubting any of that. My point is we can’t know if a game was ever played with all perfect moves. Not unless we can follow through every branch of every branch of every variation from start to finish.

godsofhell1235
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:

Looks perfect to me.

And they're not even titled players

 

How did you determine they are perfect? How did you determine that nowhere along the way a (theoritical) computer that solved chess wouldn’t find a win by force, for either side, anywhere along the way?

It's a good question.

How do I know for sure the sun will rise tomorrow?

How do I know for sure how old I am?

I'd put my certainty that the game I posted was always a draw somewhere in between those (I'm more certain the sun will rise than how old I am).

I have actual evidence the Sun will rise. Shall I articulate it? 

 

What evidence do you have to support your position?

Yeah, I'm not as sure as the sun, it was somewhere in between remember.

But it's not impossible that the sun wont rise. Some freak astronomical event could destroy the earth. With no horizon, there'd be no sunrise tongue.png

---

My evidence, I would say, is that I've studied endgames (which helps make long term evaluations about middlegames and even things like pawn structure out of the opening).

godsofhell1235
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:

Definitely computers aren't perfect... but it's like running nearly as fast as a car, you'd have to be ridiculously strong. Sure planes go faster, but the point is it's pretty damn good.

The top 10 players play chess pretty damn well. I guess that's my point.

I’m not doubting any of that. My point is we can’t know if a game was ever played with all perfect moves. Not unless we can follow through every branch of every branch of every variation from start to finish.

I agree.