Will computers ever solve chess?

Sort:
ponz111
AryamaanChess wrote:

You know those puzzles which computers cannot solve? Those will probably remain unsolved. Also, chess might evolve by the time computers are able to crack present day chess.

No, a grandmaster posted two of those puzzles and i solved both of them in a short period of time!?

There is a big difference between solving chess and solving some puzzles which computers cannot solve. 

USArmyParatrooper

lol

 

For crying out loud. Is “the most monstrous engine we have” AMONG the top engines, yes or no? So if someone can beat the “the most monstrous engine we have” does that not ALSO mean the person the person can beat all the top engines?

 

You’re grasping at straws. 

USArmyParatrooper
ponz111 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:  ponz in red
ponz111 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
pawn8888 wrote:

I don't think that perfect games are all that rare. There's a right move and a lot of bad moves. If both players play the right moves, then it's a perfect game.

Perfect would be the absolute, objectively best move on every move. Perfect would destroy any engine we have today.

Sorry but someone playing a perfect game would not destroy an engine.

Where do you get such silly ideas?

  It’s literally impossible to play better than perfect, and nobody said otherwise. 

and engines aren’t perfect.  That’s called reason and logic. No, it is not reason and logic--if someone or something played  a perfect game this would NOT destroy Alpha Zero. [the game would probably end in a draw]

- We both agree it’s literally impossible to play better than perfect.

- All the top engines (a subset of which is the most monstrous engine we have) have been beat by other engines, which means they’re beatable.

- Which means they CAN be beat by perfect play.

- And since you say perfect play HAS been played by humans “thousands of times” that means humans CAN (on rare occasions) beat all the top engines, including “the most monstrous engine we have.”

godsofhell1235
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:  ponz in red
ponz111 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
pawn8888 wrote:

I don't think that perfect games are all that rare. There's a right move and a lot of bad moves. If both players play the right moves, then it's a perfect game.

Perfect would be the absolute, objectively best move on every move. Perfect would destroy any engine we have today.

Sorry but someone playing a perfect game would not destroy an engine.

Where do you get such silly ideas?

  It’s literally impossible to play better than perfect, and nobody said otherwise. 

and engines aren’t perfect.  That’s called reason and logic. No, it is not reason and logic--if someone or something played  a perfect game this would NOT destroy Alpha Zero. [the game would probably end in a draw]

- We both agree it’s literally impossible to play better than perfect.

- All the top engines (a subset of which is the most monstrous engine we have) have been beat by other engines, which means they’re beatable.

- Which means they CAN be beat by perfect play.

- And since you say perfect play HAS been played by humans “thousands of times” that means humans CAN (on rare occasions) beat all the top engines, including “the most monstrous engine we have.”

That's not how we defined perfect play though. It merely required that the eval (as seen by a 32 man EGTB) never change.

Perfect isn't the capacity to win/draw in every scenario. It's the difference between a perfect game and a perfect player.

USArmyParatrooper
godsofhell1235 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:  ponz in red
ponz111 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
pawn8888 wrote:

I don't think that perfect games are all that rare. There's a right move and a lot of bad moves. If both players play the right moves, then it's a perfect game.

Perfect would be the absolute, objectively best move on every move. Perfect would destroy any engine we have today.

Sorry but someone playing a perfect game would not destroy an engine.

Where do you get such silly ideas?

  It’s literally impossible to play better than perfect, and nobody said otherwise. 

and engines aren’t perfect.  That’s called reason and logic. No, it is not reason and logic--if someone or something played  a perfect game this would NOT destroy Alpha Zero. [the game would probably end in a draw]

- We both agree it’s literally impossible to play better than perfect.

- All the top engines (a subset of which is the most monstrous engine we have) have been beat by other engines, which means they’re beatable.

- Which means they CAN be beat by perfect play.

- And since you say perfect play HAS been played by humans “thousands of times” that means humans CAN (on rare occasions) beat all the top engines, including “the most monstrous engine we have.”

That's not how we defined perfect play though. It merely required that the eval (as seen by a 32 man EGTB) never change.

Perfect isn't the capacity to win/draw in every scenario. It's the difference between a perfect game and a perfect player.

 Honestly I’m not sure what that is, but if it isn’t a literally perfect analysis then by definition it isn’t perfect, nor is it relevant to the discussion of the chest being solved

 

 If you want to redefine perfect as something that’s actually less than perfect, then that changes the entire conversation and a different word should be used. 

troy7915
ponz111 wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
ponz111 wrote:

I suffer from a disorder where i speak the truth and it pisses people off.

 

 

  That’s what religious fanatics say, when spreading around their dishonest propaganda. 

 Their sickness, though, is of a more clinical nature.

Lots of laughs!  i knew someone might bite if i wrote that idiom--and you fell for it!

 

  Despite the game, you have a serious intellectual handicap.

 

 Logically speaking, you are unable to see that potentially, as a theoretical possibility, the Ruy Lopez can ultimately lose by force. Or any other opening you may be infatuated with. The fact that it didn’t happen  has nothing to do with how strong Ruy Lopez is, but with how far anybody is ( human or computer) from analyzing all the variants in this particular opening.

 

 Without any reason whatsoever, one illogical brain decided to call Ruy Lopez’s first three moves ‘perfect’. Why? No particular reason, apart from a whim.

godsofhell1235
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:  ponz in red
ponz111 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
pawn8888 wrote:

I don't think that perfect games are all that rare. There's a right move and a lot of bad moves. If both players play the right moves, then it's a perfect game.

Perfect would be the absolute, objectively best move on every move. Perfect would destroy any engine we have today.

Sorry but someone playing a perfect game would not destroy an engine.

Where do you get such silly ideas?

  It’s literally impossible to play better than perfect, and nobody said otherwise. 

and engines aren’t perfect.  That’s called reason and logic. No, it is not reason and logic--if someone or something played  a perfect game this would NOT destroy Alpha Zero. [the game would probably end in a draw]

- We both agree it’s literally impossible to play better than perfect.

- All the top engines (a subset of which is the most monstrous engine we have) have been beat by other engines, which means they’re beatable.

- Which means they CAN be beat by perfect play.

- And since you say perfect play HAS been played by humans “thousands of times” that means humans CAN (on rare occasions) beat all the top engines, including “the most monstrous engine we have.”

That's not how we defined perfect play though. It merely required that the eval (as seen by a 32 man EGTB) never change.

Perfect isn't the capacity to win/draw in every scenario. It's the difference between a perfect game and a perfect player.

 Honestly I’m not sure what that is, but if it isn’t a literally perfect analysis then by definition it isn’t perfect, nor is it relevant to the discussion of the chest being solved. 

 

 If you want to redefine perfect as something that’s actually less than perfect, then that changes the entire conversation and a different word should be used. 

EGTB = endgame tablebase. For any position it gives either "mate in __" or "draw." It contains every possible arrangement of pieces for that number and below. So a 6 man EGTB (link below) references a database with every possible arrangement of 6 pieces or less.

http://www.k4it.de/index.php?lang=en&topic=egtb

 

We could define "perfect player" as someone who additionally plays the most difficult moves, but that gets tricky. A 32 man EGTB is usually what people think of as having solved chess.

Smositional
ponz111 wrote:

I suffer from a disorder where i speak the truth and it pisses people off.

[can't wait to get a reaction from this one...]

How dare you! Don't hurt my feelings!

USArmyParatrooper
godsofhell1235 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:  ponz in red
ponz111 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
pawn8888 wrote:

I don't think that perfect games are all that rare. There's a right move and a lot of bad moves. If both players play the right moves, then it's a perfect game.

Perfect would be the absolute, objectively best move on every move. Perfect would destroy any engine we have today.

Sorry but someone playing a perfect game would not destroy an engine.

Where do you get such silly ideas?

  It’s literally impossible to play better than perfect, and nobody said otherwise. 

and engines aren’t perfect.  That’s called reason and logic. No, it is not reason and logic--if someone or something played  a perfect game this would NOT destroy Alpha Zero. [the game would probably end in a draw]

- We both agree it’s literally impossible to play better than perfect.

- All the top engines (a subset of which is the most monstrous engine we have) have been beat by other engines, which means they’re beatable.

- Which means they CAN be beat by perfect play.

- And since you say perfect play HAS been played by humans “thousands of times” that means humans CAN (on rare occasions) beat all the top engines, including “the most monstrous engine we have.”

That's not how we defined perfect play though. It merely required that the eval (as seen by a 32 man EGTB) never change.

Perfect isn't the capacity to win/draw in every scenario. It's the difference between a perfect game and a perfect player.

 Honestly I’m not sure what that is, but if it isn’t a literally perfect analysis then by definition it isn’t perfect, nor is it relevant to the discussion of the chest being solved. 

 

 If you want to redefine perfect as something that’s actually less than perfect, then that changes the entire conversation and a different word should be used. 

EGTB = endgame tablebase. For any position it gives either "mate in __" or "draw." It contains every possible arrangement of pieces for that number and below. So a 6 man EGTB (link below) references a database with every possible arrangement of 6 pieces or less.

http://www.k4it.de/index.php?lang=en&topic=egtb

 

We could define "perfect player" as someone who additionally plays the most difficult moves, but that gets tricky. A 32 man EGTB is usually what people think of as having solved chess.

 I’m talking about complete games. A human can certainly find “perfect” moves in very specific, simplified positions. An obvious example is where only one move is mate in one.  That has no bearing on someone playing an actual complete, perfect game. 

godsofhell1235
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:  ponz in red
ponz111 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
pawn8888 wrote:

I don't think that perfect games are all that rare. There's a right move and a lot of bad moves. If both players play the right moves, then it's a perfect game.

Perfect would be the absolute, objectively best move on every move. Perfect would destroy any engine we have today.

Sorry but someone playing a perfect game would not destroy an engine.

Where do you get such silly ideas?

  It’s literally impossible to play better than perfect, and nobody said otherwise. 

and engines aren’t perfect.  That’s called reason and logic. No, it is not reason and logic--if someone or something played  a perfect game this would NOT destroy Alpha Zero. [the game would probably end in a draw]

- We both agree it’s literally impossible to play better than perfect.

- All the top engines (a subset of which is the most monstrous engine we have) have been beat by other engines, which means they’re beatable.

- Which means they CAN be beat by perfect play.

- And since you say perfect play HAS been played by humans “thousands of times” that means humans CAN (on rare occasions) beat all the top engines, including “the most monstrous engine we have.”

That's not how we defined perfect play though. It merely required that the eval (as seen by a 32 man EGTB) never change.

Perfect isn't the capacity to win/draw in every scenario. It's the difference between a perfect game and a perfect player.

 Honestly I’m not sure what that is, but if it isn’t a literally perfect analysis then by definition it isn’t perfect, nor is it relevant to the discussion of the chest being solved. 

 

 If you want to redefine perfect as something that’s actually less than perfect, then that changes the entire conversation and a different word should be used. 

EGTB = endgame tablebase. For any position it gives either "mate in __" or "draw." It contains every possible arrangement of pieces for that number and below. So a 6 man EGTB (link below) references a database with every possible arrangement of 6 pieces or less.

http://www.k4it.de/index.php?lang=en&topic=egtb

 

We could define "perfect player" as someone who additionally plays the most difficult moves, but that gets tricky. A 32 man EGTB is usually what people think of as having solved chess.

 I’m talking about complete games. A human can certainly find “perfect” moves in very specific, simplified positions. An obvious example is where only one move is mate in one.  That has no bearing on someone playing an actual complete, perfect game. 

Like we talked about earlier, it's pretty easy to keep the game always a draw. That's the sense in which the game is perfect.

Saying the person would have to account for every possible variation is talking about a perfect player, not a perfect game.

(Yes we can't be sure the e.g. exchange french game I posted earlier is perfect, but IMO it likely is)

godsofhell1235

 I mean, it's a somewhat unintuitive and silly definition of a perfect game, I agree.

Colloquially, and in practical play, we would mean perfect as something more akin to posing the most difficult problems for your opponent at every opportunity while also not making any mistakes.

USArmyParatrooper
godsofhell1235 wrote:

Like we talked about earlier, it's pretty easy to keep the game always a draw. That's the sense in which the game is perfect.

Saying the person would have to account for every possible variation is talking about a perfect player, not a perfect game.

(Yes we can't be sure the e.g. exchange french game I posted earlier is perfect, but IMO it likely is)

I’m not following. A game that ends in a draw is a “perfect“ game? 

 

 A perfect player would be a player who plays perfect every time, which would essentially be God. 

 

 A perfect game is a game where every move was perfect. 

godsofhell1235
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:

Like we talked about earlier, it's pretty easy to keep the game always a draw. That's the sense in which the game is perfect.

Saying the person would have to account for every possible variation is talking about a perfect player, not a perfect game.

(Yes we can't be sure the e.g. exchange french game I posted earlier is perfect, but IMO it likely is)

I’m not following. A game that ends in a draw is a “perfect“ game? 

 

 A perfect player would be a player who plays perfect every time, which would essentially be God. 

 

 A perfect game is a game where every move was perfect. 

Ok, but what do we mean by perfect? I thought earlier we agreed a perfect move was one that didn't change the evaluation.

USArmyParatrooper
godsofhell1235 wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
godsofhell1235 wrote:

Like we talked about earlier, it's pretty easy to keep the game always a draw. That's the sense in which the game is perfect.

Saying the person would have to account for every possible variation is talking about a perfect player, not a perfect game.

(Yes we can't be sure the e.g. exchange french game I posted earlier is perfect, but IMO it likely is)

I’m not following. A game that ends in a draw is a “perfect“ game? 

 

 A perfect player would be a player who plays perfect every time, which would essentially be God. 

 

 A perfect game is a game where every move was perfect. 

Ok, but what do we mean by perfect? I thought earlier we agreed a perfect move was one that didn't change the evaluation.

 Well, in reality what is objectively the best move. Not the best move that humans or the top engines would evaluate, what is actually objectively the best move. 

 

What ponz111 asserted is that perfect merely means a player made no mistakes “that could change the theoretical outcome of the game.“

 

That’s a distinction without a difference. 

vickalan
btickler wrote:

...According to whom?...

Read the forum. Unlike here, where anyone can post anything they want with no provision for expert review, the computer science forum is subject to peer-review.happy.png

edilio134

 chessbase-->blunder check

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

Like we talked about earlier, it's pretty easy to keep the game always a draw. That's the sense in which the game is perfect.

Saying the person would have to account for every possible variation is talking about a perfect player, not a perfect game.

(Yes we can't be sure the e.g. exchange french game I posted earlier is perfect, but IMO it likely is)

I’m not following. A game that ends in a draw is a “perfect“ game? 

 

 A perfect player would be a player who plays perfect every time, which would essentially be God. 

 

 A perfect game is a game where every move was perfect. 

Ok, but what do we mean by perfect? I thought earlier we agreed a perfect move was one that didn't change the evaluation.

 Well, in reality what is objectively the best move. Not the best move that humans or the top engines would evaluate, what is actually objectively the best move. 

 

What ponz111 asserted is that perfect merely means a player made no mistakes “that would change the theoretical outcome of the game.“

 

That’s a distinction without a difference. 

Ok, but in many positions all legal moves are "perfect" right?

Black to move. All legal moves draw.

 

Now a human would probably play Ke6 because this allows him to maintain opposition. This is the type of move that's required to draw (only move that draws) once the position has been shifted up two ranks. But in the current position all legal moves are "perfect" would you agree?

 

(Below diagram, only Ke8 will draw)

 

USArmyParatrooper
s23bog wrote:

If there is a random collection of game scores, and you wish to search them for mistakes, how would you search them?

 Humans and computers can find some mistakes by analysis. To borrow my earlier example, if someone misses mate in one, that’s an obvious mistake.  But neither humans nor computers can possibly find every mistake in a game.  It’s theoretically possible that in the kings gambit, 2. f4 loses by force, and black has mate in 104 with best play by white. 

 

 We just don’t know. We have no possible way to know if a perfect game has ever been played. 

 

 

USArmyParatrooper

Goh,  I’ve already repeatedly said humans can find perfect moves in some positions. That’s a far cry from playing an entire perfect game, where every move is perfect. 

JAIKAVIN1373

ya

they also can solve chess like humans