Will computers ever solve chess? - Chess Forums - Page 60

ptd570 · 2014-01-22T11:57:20-08:00

Will there ever be a computer strong enough to solve chess to the point where white uses its half tempo advantage to always beat black no matter what moves black plays (in otherwords the same computer can never win with black even after a thousand random games against itself) I beleive one day the

Elroch

Jul 2, 2017

0

#1181

While it seems very unlikely chess is a win for black, if there was a zugzwang in the initial position that required calculation to 500 moves deep to verify, we would have no way to detect it.

But it is very unlikely.

Elroch

Jul 2, 2017

0

#1182

s23bog wrote:

Elroch wrote:

There can be no position where EVERY move by a side worsens its true value. This value is defined as the value achieved by the BEST possible move, which is the value the opponent can reach by their BEST possible reply (recursively).

There absolutely CAN be such a position. It is called zugzwang. But there is no way that white is in zugzwang at the start of the game.

You are in error.

If one side can FORCE the other into zugzwang (or another losing position), the advantage is there beforehand.

The thing to bear in mind is that in a tablebase, the value never changes when play by both sides is accurate. Note also that the only true values of a position in chess are white win, draw or loss. Anything else is an imprecise assessment.

JeffGreen333

Jul 2, 2017

0

#1183

Ok, you've made 6 posts in a row, s23bog. Are you having a conversation with yourself now? lol

Nathanhof

Jul 2, 2017

0

#1184

s23bog wrote:

Elroch wrote:

There can be no position where EVERY move by a side worsens its true value. This value is defined as the value achieved by the BEST possible move, which is the value the opponent can reach by their BEST possible reply (recursively).

There absolutely CAN be such a position. It is called zugzwang. But there is no way that white is in zugzwang at the start of the game.

So you're telling me you've solved chess?

Nathanhof

Jul 2, 2017

0

#1185

s23bog wrote:

If it is more difficult to rid heat using a spherical design, then I would try to find a way to use the heat rather than getting rid of it. Perhaps if the thinking relating to using heat trapped in mines could be useful.

Google "entropy" before you continue with that train of thought.

Elroch

Jul 3, 2017

0

#1186

As we discussed, temperature differences (preferably large ones) are useful source of energy. A spherical chip is generating heat through the entire interior, and any attempt to harness that heat cannot realistically be a way to help keep it cool.

Elroch

Jul 3, 2017

0

#1187

s23bog wrote:

Nathanhof wrote:

s23bog wrote:

Elroch wrote:

There can be no position where EVERY move by a side worsens its true value. This value is defined as the value achieved by the BEST possible move, which is the value the opponent can reach by their BEST possible reply (recursively).

There absolutely CAN be such a position. It is called zugzwang. But there is no way that white is in zugzwang at the start of the game.

So you're telling me you've solved chess?

Huh? I said nothing about solving chess in that post. If every move worsens a player's position, they are said to be in zugzwang. I bet you could even create a position in which every move would worsen their position, except for a pass (which is not legal, of course). Maybe even a pass would force mate (assuming the other player couldn't also pass. A double zugzwang. But that position is no where near the start of the game.

You cannot post a position where every move worsens the position, because this statement is contradictory. A best move in a position preserves the result. An inferior move is one which makes the result worse. A position where a player is in zugzwang is a bad position BEFORE they move. The position after the last time they moved was definitely bad (i.e. it had no better than the same result as the current position).

[A technical point: "bad" could mean only drawing in some zugzwang positions].

LegoPirateSenior

Jul 3, 2017

0

#1188

s23bog wrote:

Do you really want to take that bet ... that I cannot post a position that every move will worsen one's position, except for a pass? Let's say for argument's sake that every move would lose, while a pass would win.

There is no "pass" in chess. You might just as well post such position in "snakes and ladders" and it would be equally relevant.

JeffGreen333

Jul 3, 2017

0

#1189

s23bog wrote:

Do you really want to take that bet ... that I cannot post a position that every move will worsen one's position, except for a pass? Let's say for argument's sake that every move would lose, while a pass would win.

You didn't read his comment carefully. He wrote "BEFORE" in all caps, for a reason. He's saying that the position that leads to zugzwang actually occurs a move (or more) BEFORE it's obvious on the board. A bad move had to be made previously, in order to make the zugzwang'ing move possible. I could agree with that. So, if a bad move was played previously, that would eliminate the "every move is the best move" parameter of solving chess. Therefore, if every move was perfect, zugzwang cannot possibly occur. So, I seriously doubt that you can post a position, where every single move made was "perfectly" (the #1 candidate move from a quantum supercomputer with the best chess program imaginable) and have a zugzwang occur that does not result in a draw (the inevitable chess solution). Stalemate could be considered zugzwang, I suppose, since the best result is a draw. Maybe the solution to chess is a forced stalemate. lol

JeffGreen333

Jul 3, 2017

0

#1190

We may have stumbled on to the key here though. You have a point about zugzwang. Maybe the solution to chess is the ultimate zugzwang ............ a stalemate. That would explain a lot and would end this entire debate. A bad move needs to be made to create a zugzwang, but a bad doesn't necessarily need to be made to create a stalemate, if a checkmate is not possible. For example, black is in zugzwang, through no fault of his own, yet he creates a draw by getting his own king into a stalemate, which is in essence his best possible move. This scenario would satisfy all of the conditions of a perfect solution to chess. It takes white's first move advantage into account and satisfies the "every move being the best possible move" conundrum too.

JeffGreen333

Jul 3, 2017

0

#1191

s23bog wrote:

If chess were solved today, and no more computer cpu time or HDD storage space were ever used on chess again ... how many resources would be freed up to accomplish even great things?

One small group of people is not going to be able to solve chess. We can contribute to the efforts that have already been made, but what we do is nothing compared to the work that has been done. If humankind could pool resources across all nations, then I think we could make quick work of solving it.

Would the lessons learned be applied to even greater challenges in the future?

This begs the question .... "Why would you even want to solve chess?". Isn't it more fun not knowing if a computer can force a win or a draw? If a computer ever does "solve" chess, it could be the end of chess as we know it, because a lot of new players may write it off as just an advanced form of checkers or tic tac toe (since they can be "solved" too). And yes, I still put the word "solved" in quotes, because we're not all on the same page about what "solved" even means or whether chess can even be "solved".

ponz111

Jul 3, 2017

0

#1192

s23bog wrote:

If chess were solved today, and no more computer cpu time or HDD storage space were ever used on chess again ... how many resources would be freed up to accomplish even great things?

One small group of people is not going to be able to solve chess. We can contribute to the efforts that have already been made, but what we do is nothing compared to the work that has been done. If humankind could pool resources across all nations, then I think we could make quick work of solving it.

Would the lessons learned be applied to even greater challenges in the future?

Th problem is that if humankind could pool resources across all nations, then the game could still not be solved. It is far too complex for that.

Our sun would explode and humans would be wiped off earth before the game of chess could be solved.

ponz111

Jul 4, 2017

0

#1193

s23bog wrote:

Why would you assume that a bad move needs to be made to create zugzwang? That is like assuming that the solution is that it is a draw. It might be a good guess, but it is still an assumption.

We have a problem of confirmation bias, I think. There are those that believe best play achieves a draw, and there are those that belive it is possible for white to win. Each camp sets out to prove his position correct. That is why I suggested that one should create an engine to specifically look for a white win, while creating another to play for a black draw.

Regardless, though, somehow there has to be a way for engines to communicate with one another. Whther those engines are running on one machine at the same time, or are in cyberspace.

It is not confirmation bias that the game of chess is a draw with best play. There is overwhelming evidence that the game of chess is a draw with best play.

One cannot create a chess engine which looks for a win and get anywhere as this would take as long as solving chess and solving chess will not happen during the lifetime of humans on earth.

Not to mention the chess engine would not find a win for White as the game of chess is a draw with best play!?

JeffGreen333

Jul 4, 2017

0

#1194

UtrechtRose wrote:

s23bog wrote:

We have a problem of confirmation bias, I think. There are those that believe best play achieves a draw, and there are those that belive it is possible for white to win. Each camp sets out to prove his position correct. That is why I suggested that one should create an engine to specifically look for a white win, while creating another to play for a black draw.

You are assuming that chess is either a draw or a win for White, and forgetting that it might turn out to be a win for Black.

Seriously? If you add all of the GM games ever played together, I think it comes out to something like 36% white wins/ 34% draws/ 30% black wins. I'm not sure if those percentages are correct, but I know that white wins more than black does. Also, given that white moves first, the solution to chess can't possibly be a win for black. I'd bet money on a draw being the "solution", if there even is one. Heck, even if white ends up with K+B vs K or K+N vs K, it's still a draw.

DiogenesDue

Jul 4, 2017

0

#1195

JeffGreen333 wrote:

Maybe someone needs to define the word "solved" then, as it applies to this topic. Does "solved" mean that white wins no matter what black does? Does it mean that its a draw no matter what white does? Does it just mean that there is a perfect reply to every possible move, but the outcome can go either way? What exactly are we talking about here?

Maybe someone already did and you haven't read the many mentions of it in this thread?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game (again)

LegoPirateSenior

Jul 4, 2017

0

#1196

s23bog wrote:

In short, solving the game means finding out (with certainty) if white can always force a win, or if black can always hold a draw Those are the only two possibilities.

You need to review your misconception of what "solving the game" means.

There are games where the second player to move has a guaranteed win. For example, in a chess variant Maharajah and the Sepoys, black has a forced win.

MSC157

Jul 4, 2017

0

#1197

Very interesting, LPS. It's the first time I hear of that variant.

Nathanhof

Jul 4, 2017

0

#1198

s23bog wrote:

Nathanhof wrote:

s23bog wrote:

Elroch wrote:

There can be no position where EVERY move by a side worsens its true value. This value is defined as the value achieved by the BEST possible move, which is the value the opponent can reach by their BEST possible reply (recursively).

There absolutely CAN be such a position. It is called zugzwang. But there is no way that white is in zugzwang at the start of the game.

So you're telling me you've solved chess?

Huh? I said nothing about solving chess in that post. If every move worsens a player's position, they are said to be in zugzwang. I bet you could even create a position in which every move would worsen their position, except for a pass (which is not legal, of course). Maybe even a pass would force mate (assuming the other player couldn't also pass. A double zugzwang. But that position is no where near the start of the game.

If you know for a fact that the opening isn't zugzwang that means you must have solved the game, otherwise your statement is an assumption you cannot substantiate meaning your earlier statement is also unsubstantiated.

Nathanhof

Jul 4, 2017

0

#1199

s23bog wrote:

The same petty arguments over and over again.

i.e. "But you are assuming it isn't a win for black."

"But you are stupid and don't know what zugzwang mean.

I am not going to address either of them, becuase they have been addressed.

Maybe if everybody is pointing it out that means it's a flaw in your reasoning?

Nathanhof

Jul 4, 2017

0

#1200

s23bog wrote:

In short, solving the game means finding out (with certainty) if white can always force a win, or if black can always hold a draw Those are the only two possibilities.

You cannot even copy paste the literal definition of solving a game...
"
Solving chess means finding an optimal strategy for playing chess, i.e. one by which one of the players (White or Black) can always force a victory, or both can force a draw
"
Google is your friend