Will computers ever solve chess?
Sort:
ProfessorPownall
Jul 25, 2017
0
#1741
[COMMENT DELETED]
Jul 25, 2017
0
#1742
@s23bog... calling me "Pee-pee" are we. Hmmm
I completely disagree with your premise of solving chess by "retrograde" analysis. The questions you ask are often trivial and illogical. But I always refer to you by name. Your childish name calling does not warrant any further discussion. All that Bible thumping of yours in another thread and this is how you act ?
Jul 25, 2017
0
#1743
FYI
"Shredder" is the World Champion software program. (supporting at most 8 cores, eliminating super computers.)
"Komodo" is the World Champion running on unlimited hardware.
The reason Stockfish is seen and used for analysis at events is because it's open sourced, free for everyone to use. No royalties need paying. The entire code is open for use and can be modified to fit particular requirements. It is a strong program, but certainly not the best if money is to be paid.
Jul 25, 2017
0
#1745
To "solve" chess "starting from the end position to move one" would require every possible checkmate position be identified BEFORE the search even begins. One position can not be picked from a hat, analysed until a mistake is found, then go on to another checkmate position. This approach is illogical. All the work to identify every checkmate position before testing of the hypothesis begins is impossible, besides being illogical.
Any reasonable search begins at move 1.
Jul 25, 2017
0
#1746
ProfessorPownall wrote:
To "solve" chess "starting from the end position to move one" would require every possible checkmate position be identified BEFORE the search even begins. One position can not be picked from a hat, analysed until a mistake is found, then go on to another checkmate position. This approach is illogical. All the work to identify every checkmate position before testing of the hypothesis begins is impossible, besides being illogical.
Any reasonable search begins at move 1.
And not before!
Jul 25, 2017
0
#1747
s23bog wrote:
How do you propose that one would search for the singular best move from the initial position?
That asks a the well discussed question somewhere on this site, "Will computers ever solve chess?" which already has over 2500 posts, and no end in sight.
ProfessorPownall wrote:
To "solve" chess "starting from the end position to move one" would require every possible checkmate position be identified BEFORE the search even begins. One position can not be picked from a hat, analysed until a mistake is found, then go on to another checkmate position. This approach is illogical. All the work to identify every checkmate position before testing of the hypothesis begins is impossible, besides being illogical.
Any reasonable search begins at move 1.
This assumes there is a checkmate position after the end of a perfect game.
This assumption is wrong. Chess is a draw with optimum play.
vickalan wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
...all the work which has ever been done in the past thousand years points very clearly that the result of chess is a draw with optimum play by both sides.
Almost all of the very best players recognize this
Can you provide a source to back this up? Speculation and conjecture doesn't count.
Can you find any chess grandmaster who says they are 100% positive a perfect game of chess leads to a draw?
One does not have to be 100% positive. Many are not 100% posititve of anything. After all it is possible we are just a game in something's mind.
I am 99.99% sure game is a draw with best play. Just ask any grandmaster and he will tell you chess is a draw with best play.
But to answer the question of this forum.
Of course computers will never solve chess as the cost for computers to try and solve chess would be so high that it would not be worth the time and effort and expense--especially since the very top players have already told us chess is a draw with best play and also there is a ton of evidence pointing that way.
Jul 25, 2017
0
#1751
ponz111 wrote:
But to answer the question of this forum.
Of course computers will never solve chess as the cost for computers to try and solve chess would be so high that it would not be worth the time and effort and expense--especially since the very top players have already told us chess is a draw with best play and also there is a ton of evidence pointing that way.
It is perfectly reasonable to believe top players when they say chess is very likely a draw. It would be wrong to believe them if they say chess is certainly a draw: that would be exaggerating how solid the basis of their belief is greatly.
I could easily design a game that is virtually always a draw between two very strong players, but which is a win for one side or the other, with perfect play.
Elroch wrote: ponz in red
ponz111 wrote:
But to answer the question of this forum.
Of course computers will never solve chess as the cost for computers to try and solve chess would be so high that it would not be worth the time and effort and expense--especially since the very top players have already told us chess is a draw with best play and also there is a ton of evidence pointing that way.
It is perfectly reasonable to believe top players when they say chess is very likely a draw. It would be wrong to believe them if they say chess is certainly a draw: that would be exaggerating how solid the basis of their belief is greatly. how do you know this?
I could easily design a game that is virtually always a draw between two very strong players, but which is a win for one side or the other, with perfect play. yes, you could but i will bet it would not be as complex as chess and also it would not have been studied for thousands of years.
ponz111 wrote:
Just ask any grandmaster and he will tell you chess is a draw with best play.
Nope, they don't. Some amateur and intermediate chess players say that, but they're just guessing.
vickalan wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
Just ask any grandmaster and he will tell you chess is a draw with best play.
Nope, they don't. Some amateur and intermediate chess players say that, but they're just guessing.
Yes, some players who are not strong say that but that is not relevant as some also believe White wins with optimum play.
You will find that as players become stronger--the more likely they will believe chess is a draw--until you reach the very strongest players and just about all of them believe chess is a draw with optimum play.
I only know of one grandmaster who thought White should win and he is deceased and also he was writing a book with that idea.
Just ask and you will see.
Ok I checked to see if what ponz111 says is true:
Grandmaster Larry Kaufman says: "the initiative stemming from the first move can always be transformed into some sort of enduring advantage...with either 1.e4 or 1.d4, White should be able to obtain some sort of advantage that persists into the endgame."
...so not true.
Jul 25, 2017
0
#1756
s23bog wrote:
I would concede that it is a draw if white is shown not to have a forced win.
Brilliant Deduction !
But for a fatal FLAW !
The game is a forced win for the 2nd player !!
You'll concede the draw ! Mind-numbing deduction
Jul 25, 2017
0
#1757
Is Chess a draw?
Common sense, and general consensus says it is, but that is not absolute certainty.
Why is it not certain?
Because Chess has not yet been solved, whatever that actually means, because i do not think the meaning of the word solve has been agreed upon here for the whole thread which started 4 years ago, and gets bumped every now and then.
The latest round has been VERY long, due to the intransigemce of the main current combatants.
See y'all next Bump around.
ProfessorPownall wrote:
FYI
"Shredder" is the World Champion software program. (supporting at most 8 cores, eliminating super computers.)
"Komodo" is the World Champion running on unlimited hardware.
The reason Stockfish is seen and used for analysis at events is because it's open sourced, free for everyone to use. No royalties need paying. The entire code is open for use and can be modified to fit particular requirements. It is a strong program, but certainly not the best if money is to be paid.
Ummm, no, Stockfish is the TCEC champion this past season (Season 9), and Komodo did not even make the finals...Houdini 5 played Stockfish and lost pretty badly.
Shredder!? An also-ran that is never used for live analysis of pro chess tournaments.
petrip wrote:
camter wrote:
Is Chess a draw?
Common sense, and general consensus says it is, but that is not absolute certainty.
Why is it nor certain?
Because Chess has not yet been solved, whatvever that actually means, because i do not think the meaning of the woed solve has been agreed a upon here for the whole thread which started 4 years ago, and gets bumped every now and then.
The latest round has been VERY long, due to the intransigemce of the main current combatants.
See y'all next Bump around.
Solving as meant by mathematicians is pretty hard. It would meen really going through every move and every response till game result is clear. Pretyy obvious to anyone that is not doable. Of cource everyone is free to define the word how they like but that isnot solving means
OMG, someone who gets it.