usa is not gonna stop global warming
Will computers ever solve chess?
Sort:
Kasparov once said that when he analyzes the same games from the past, published in his books, with newer and newer engines, he becomes unsure of his previous evaluations and so he constantly changes them. But try make Ponz understand this concept, who believes that 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 are perfect moves...
Yes.
Every time I win a match I solve it. LOL so do you.
Solving chess is not possible.
Nov 11, 2018
0
#6528
SantaCruz2017 wrote:
Every time I win a match I solve it. LOL so do you.
Thx for saying the truth!
Nov 12, 2018
0
#6529
troy7915 wrote:
Kasparov once said that when he analyzes the same games from the past, published in his books, with newer and newer engines, he becomes unsure of his previous evaluations and so he constantly changes them. But try make Ponz understand this concept, who believes that 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 are perfect moves...
Seriously? Ponz much prefers 3. c3. 
And he was US correspondence chess champion in the pre-computer era, which makes his views worth listening to.
Note also that at the level of absolute truth there are opening lines that achieve the best possible result (likely a draw) and there are those that don't. Any finer distinctions are not important. With this observation, almost all respectable opening lines are likely to be of exactly equal standing. Centipawns are an expression of the lack of complete understanding by computers, nothing more.
Nov 12, 2018
0
#6530
When two top computers play a game and it ends in a draw, then I would say that it's a perfect game and that they have 'solved' chess. I don't see why it wouldn't be true. Each has come up with a countering move that equalizes the game right to the end and that's the way it's supposed to be played. .
NO!!!!!!!!!!!
Elroch wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
Kasparov once said that when he analyzes the same games from the past, published in his books, with newer and newer engines, he becomes unsure of his previous evaluations and so he constantly changes them. But try make Ponz understand this concept, who believes that 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 are perfect moves...
Seriously? Ponz much prefers 3. c3.
And he was US correspondence chess champion in the pre-computer era, which makes his views worth listening to.
Note also that at the level of absolute truth there are opening lines that achieve the best possible result (likely a draw) and there are those that don't. Any finer distinctions are not important. With this observation, almost all respectable opening lines are likely to be of exactly equal standing. Centipawns are an expression of the lack of complete understanding by computers, nothing more.
I didn’t say he prefers 3. c3. I’ve used that example because he used it to demonstrate his view on perfection. And failed.
As for being a correspondence champion, even without computers, it’s like who has a bigger chess library, or who analyzes more. Yet playing chess is one thing, and analyzing chess is quite another, as Kasparov once agreed (to this fact).
And maybe that’s why he fails to understand the point made above: that each generation of engines is stronger and faster, and what was considered ‘strong’ and ‘brilliant’ by the leading players at one time—backed up by the strongest engines of that time— is considered ‘mediocre’ or even ‘blunders’ (of GM caliber, but blunders nevertheless) within a few years span.
Nowadays engines can beat any human player, Carlsen included. What’s more, when playing side by side, the best tandem seems to be where the human player is rather weak, thus displaying less of an ego (in this direction!) and in effect being more flexible and so open to an engine’s strong suggestions.
And so this strong engine at the present moment becomes the joke of the tomorrow’s engine, where tomorrow can be a year or 50 years. Therefore at the present moment, both humans and computers know nothing about perfect opening moves. It’s a simple fact to see, unless one’s ego blocks their vision.
SantaCruz2017 wrote:
Every time I win a match I solve it. LOL so do you.
Solving chess implies best moves from start to finish, on both sides; winning in the least amount of number of moves, against the greatest resistance, expressed through the greatest number of moves. Or a draw when both sides are trying to win.
Yes.
pawn8888 wrote:
When two top computers play a game and it ends in a draw, then I would say that it's a perfect game and that they have 'solved' chess. I don't see why it wouldn't be true. Each has come up with a countering move that equalizes the game right to the end and that's the way it's supposed to be played. .
The ‘equalizing move’ cannot be called ‘best’ just because the other engine couldn’t refute it. That’s not how a ‘best move’ is correctly defined.
It doesn’t matter if there is a mate in n moves or it is a forced draw.
Just because a move equalizes doesn’t mean it was a perfect move, regardless of the end result. It may simply be that the opponent hasn’t found the refutation for the ‘equalizing’ move. No need to know in advance how the game ends, the criterion for labeling a move ‘best’ is simply wrong.
Several posts are missing, including a couple of ‘mine’. What’s going on?
chess will never be solved if it does get solved we will all be dead from.global warming anyway