I am a software engineer and from my experience I am sure that "the only solution computers will find against each other is a draw". They will beat humans for sure since they learn and evolve faster.
Will computers ever solve chess?
Sort:
Sep 8, 2018
0
#6463
I am selling Bug Lites on Amazon. The pitch is the bug light is proven 100% effective at killing mosquitos. The experimental results are verified to be 100% effective. Any mosquito coming into contact with the device is zapped. Instant death. Barbecue enthusiasts suck it up.
What I will not tell costumers. is that the mere existence of the light attracts 10X the amount of mosquitoes that would normally frequent your back yard. And of those 90% never come close enough to be zapped. They observe their mates and say: "not for me, let's go and bite a human sitting over there in the dark."
The results, that the device is 100% effective can not be denied. It is mathematics. Mathematics proves it is a wise decision to purchase my device
Sep 8, 2018
0
#6464
7x7 go is "weakly solved". This means that there is a known algorithm to play perfectly. The "weak" means that this algorithm does not know what to play in every position, only ones the opponent can reach against its strategy.
riskyCaro wrote:
I am a software engineer and from my experience I am sure that "the only solution computers will find against each other is a draw". They will beat humans for sure since they learn and evolve faster.
Logical fallacy. I am afraid you job has nothing to do with the problem and trying to bolster your argument and make it seem stronger than any other opinion doesn't cut much ice here.
Sep 9, 2018
0
#6466
ilovesmetuna wrote:
Elroch wrote:
7x7 go is "weakly solved". This means that there is a known algorithm to play perfectly. The "weak" means that this algorithm does not know what to play in every position, only ones the opponent can reach against its strategy.
Ah! L-Block, its yerself!
sorry for upsetting you by posting on your 10 year old thread man, and i hardly ever do, because stuff like that isn't really my cuppa tea.
and here was me thinking you were so nice, you would just ask me to delete it if you didn't like it!
cripes, people you admire can be so disappointing
Seriously? You got a 24 hour block for trolling and you're still complaining?
Let's be courteous!
Elroch wrote:
....While one might feel that the full tablebase is unnecessary (which is true) it is necessary to cover any position that the opponent could reach, even with the daftest of play. The tablebase is way smaller than the number of legal games, so analysing such games amounts to analysing every necessary position to the end and caching the result, which is what a tablebase does.
Agree, except it should be noted that some chess positions can be solved deductively, rather than by exhaustive analysis (i.e. "brute force"). To my knowledge, no mathematician has found an upper bound for the range of chess positions that lends itself to deductive analysis.
Sep 10, 2018
0
#6468
All of them can. The problem is that the analysis is complex for almost all of them.
The point is almost certainly moot (I would bet very strongly on it), because a tablebase is O(N log(N) ) in complexity (N is the number of positions) and it is implausible that any deductive analysis could approach log(N) complexity per position.
To see how efficient a tablebase is, note that the specific computation only involves determining the set of positions that can be reached by one move (in the backward direction at creation time, in the forward direction when using the final tablebase) and looking them up in a optimised database.
they will do good but never as good as humans
Alltheusernamestaken wrote:
SpiderUnicorn wrote:
why'd people want computers to solve chess?
it'd ruin all the fun.
chess aint gonna be about player's skills anymore
its just the guys with good memory who memorizes the winning variations
i wont want that at all
If computers solve chess it wouldn't matter as we are way behind engines. With computers solving chess we mean the perfect game, not a way to always win or lose in any position.
We wait for our Lord Jesus Christ but this computers just mark the 666.
Reynaldo, do you mind me asking if the po-po took that picture?
Sep 16, 2018
0
#6473
I would be very confident to bet against the second coming occurring before computers solve chess (even if they don't).
Sep 16, 2018
0
#6474
Top computers usually play to a draw in most matches which is the solution for chess.
Ok 8.5K comments, lets just put it to a vote!
Sep 17, 2018
0
#6476
Look at how far technology has advanced. If we keep going at this pace chess will be solved eventually.
100% yes votes so far
how many posts on this??
Tic tac toe 3 X 3 is solved
4 X 4 games solved
5 X 5 Go solved.
7 X 7 Go not solved.
Interesting question. At what point do such games with probabilistic starting variables become unsolvable ???
Some will argue that all are solvable, given unlimited resources and time. Even a chess game with 1000 pieces and 1000 squares, it can be argued is solvable. The reasoning is simple. The game is finite. Unlimited computation will provide an answer.
But is this True?
The base premise is that finite possibilities are solvable. It will surprise many that the assumption is false.