SkyMarshall gave the best information on why computers will never solve chess.
She, he explained the situation very well.
Will computers ever solve chess?
Sort:
May 23, 2016
0
#703
One byte per square is enough for 256 possibilities (can't recall why I suggested 2 bytes!)
0 will do for empty.
For other pieces, you need 2 options for most, but you could use 6 for pawns and kings, to say whether there is a left or right e.p. capture and whether K or Q castling is possible.
So for each square you have one of N numbers, where
N = 1 (empty) + 2 (bishops) + 2 (knights) + 2 (rooks) + 6 pawns + 6 (kings)
= 19
Why not keep the 64 numbers in an array? You can write lots of code with knowledge of which squares are where in the array.
Don_frye1 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
One byte per square is enough for 256 possibilities (can't recall why I suggested 2 bytes!)
0 will do for empty.
For other pieces, you need 2 options for most, but you could use 6 for pawns and kings, to say whether there is a left or right e.p. capture and whether K or Q castling is possible.
So for each square you have one of N numbers, where
N = 1 (empty) + 2 (bishops) + 2 (knights) + 2 (rooks) + 6 pawns + 6 (kings)
= 19
Why not keep the 64 numbers in an array? You can write lots of code with knowledge of which squares are where in the array.
I lost track of what he was trying to do 10 pages ago
He is slowly but surely converging towards rediscovering bitboards
Reinventing. The. Wheel.
NKT73 wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
NKT73 wrote:
If you are missing a single factor of truth the answer is you cannot convict a criminal. You must be able to answer for sure that a criminal is a criminal with perfect accurate assessment.
The truth is that the judge is part of the same criminal system: they only like to play god with others.
Sorry: please, go on.
Jesus Christ! Bless Jesus Christ# Then bless my real mom Huong Thi Thuyen Vu. Honours to my real mom Huong Thi Thuyen Vu. Honours to my real dad Nguyen Binh Thuy. Congratulations to my real two sisters Nguyen Khoa Thi and Nguyen Khoa Thuyen. There is a theory that if you let a criminal go then GOD will decide the fate of the criminal. For instance if a criminal deserves death then some worldly accident will happen in the absence of people judging. However people has feelings. If my family got hurt I would want revenge. So society must take action because letting a criminal go indicates that a criminal is able to do that also to other members of society. So the people chooses by voting what is to be done in order that all members of society is safe.
Society is also sending people to kill other people to defend a piece of land and their personal identity. Nobody is convicting them, because nationalism is an international disease. Them is us.
Until one is inwardly free of problems, we are all criminals, we are all responsible for the death of other human beings.
Don_frye1 wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
SkyMarshall gave the best information on why computers will never solve chess.
She, he explained the situation very well.
We wont solve chess because its a large number?
That is how I understand SkyMarshall's explanation. They are correct. How could they not be correct?
May 24, 2016
0
#710
RoepStoep wrote:
Don_frye1 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
One byte per square is enough for 256 possibilities (can't recall why I suggested 2 bytes!)
0 will do for empty.
For other pieces, you need 2 options for most, but you could use 6 for pawns and kings, to say whether there is a left or right e.p. capture and whether K or Q castling is possible.
So for each square you have one of N numbers, where
N = 1 (empty) + 2 (bishops) + 2 (knights) + 2 (rooks) + 6 pawns + 6 (kings)
= 19
Why not keep the 64 numbers in an array? You can write lots of code with knowledge of which squares are where in the array.
I lost track of what he was trying to do 10 pages ago
He is slowly but surely converging towards rediscovering bitboards
I think all s3bog wanted was a functioning chess engine. He mentioned even having it make random moves.
Anyhow, https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/
Trolling or not trolling, that's the question once more...
NKT73 wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
NKT73 wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
NKT73 wrote:
If you are missing a single factor of truth the answer is you cannot convict a criminal. You must be able to answer for sure that a criminal is a criminal with perfect accurate assessment.
The truth is that the judge is part of the same criminal system: they only like to play god with others.
Sorry: please, go on.
Jesus Christ! Bless Jesus Christ# Then bless my real mom Huong Thi Thuyen Vu. Honours to my real mom Huong Thi Thuyen Vu. Honours to my real dad Nguyen Binh Thuy. Congratulations to my real two sisters Nguyen Khoa Thi and Nguyen Khoa Thuyen. There is a theory that if you let a criminal go then GOD will decide the fate of the criminal. For instance if a criminal deserves death then some worldly accident will happen in the absence of people judging. However people has feelings. If my family got hurt I would want revenge. So society must take action because letting a criminal go indicates that a criminal is able to do that also to other members of society. So the people chooses by voting what is to be done in order that all members of society is safe.
Society is also sending people to kill other people to defend a piece of land and their personal identity. Nobody is convicting them, because nationalism is an international disease. Them is us.
Until one is inwardly free of problems, we are all criminals, we are all responsible for the death of other human beings.
I'll give you a situation. A person trusted in charge was going to give the order to kill half the population because of war. Half the country was going to be killed! Another person gives the order to kill the person who was going to kill half the country except also gets assassinated. So two people die (one good and one not) so that all the rest of the population is saved. So the one sacrifices the life of two in exchange everyone is saved. Just an example that not everyone wants peace unfortunately.
It's bigger than that. They very division of the planet into countries, to fulfill an identity crisis, inevitably leads to war. So by being inwardly insecure, we are respposnible for all wars--past, present and it looks like it's not going to stop--unless we are inwardly free.
May 28, 2016
0
#714
s23bog wrote:
In building a database of "solved positions" it may not be the best approach to build the database by piece count. I would build it by pawn count.
Good luck with that!
Starting with zero pawns, you would need to deal with 16 piece endings. That needs trillions of trillions of bytes of storage (i.e. more than the total on planet Earth currently).
Are there any good YouTube videos on big numbers that might help put the scale of the chess problem into perspective?
fburton wrote:
Are there any good YouTube videos on big numbers that might help put the scale of the chess problem into perspective?
This seems like a good start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km024eldY1A
s23bog wrote:
I don't really care how big the wall is ...
Why not? This is the most important thing actually, you would just start climbing blindly? Be my guest, but once you are tired to the point of falling back down to earth, you'll wish you had taken a look before, as you would have noticed the wall extends all the way to the other side of the universe and beyond...
s23bog wrote:
Because you take small steps to complete every journey.
Furthermore, I think people blow up the size of the problem quite a bit. There is a lot of exaggeration and hand waving. The number of positions could quite easily be stored using existing technology. But storing it is no where near the greatest challenge. It needs to be organized quite well to be able to be searched. Even still ... searching it can be quite a task.Whether you stake small steps or large steps, the size of the wall remains the same, so that makes no sense.... On your statement that the size of the problem is exaggarated and that storing all positions is possible with current technology, well, I can really see only one explanation of how you could say such a thing: You are trolling after all... I'm sorry to say this again if you really are not trolling, but the problem of size has been explained in so many different ways by so many different people in this thread and on many other places, well, I can draw no other conclusion...
In other words, time to finally stop tracking this thread, I am either feeding the troll or overloading my nonsense buffer, neither serves any usefull purpose
Any troll that has to post twice as often and put thrice the work in as the all the people he's trolling is an incredibly inept troll ;)...
btickler wrote:
Any troll that has to post twice as often and put thrice the work in as the all the people he's trolling is an incredibly inept troll ;)...
Lol, I've seen worse, threads of 80 pages that end with a "haha I wasted your time and good intentions for weeks". I know that this kind of trolling is strangely enjoyable when done right, though I've never done it on this scale... Time wil tell I suppose 
SkyMarshall +