Oh really??
actually yes
@petri999 said in #18:
> @Ojasya5678 solved in games is well defined mathematical concept
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game
> Basically something tables bases done for endgame
That's not the complete picture. Table bases (but then for all possible positions) would be a case of strongly solving the game.
But that is not the only way to solve a game. Hex, on any N x N size board, for instance is ultra-weakly solved. It can be shown there is a winning strategy for the first player, but for larger boards, no known strategy is known.
>
> And I find it extremely unlikely that it is doable with expected time mandkind will exist and computationally resources needed would (if such resources can exist even in principle) would cost way more than anyone woul be willing to put on it
Yeah, well, 80 years mankind didn't have electronic computers at all. 100 years ago, we didn't even have the concepts of "computable" and "non-computable". It's quite pretentious to presume what we cannot compute today, we cannot compute in the thousands of years ahead.
>
> most complex game solved is 8x8 checkers ans chess search base is about 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 times bigger. solvin checkers took 18 years. It is not enough to make computer billion times faster to reduce estimated time below 1000 years
Now you are making the assumption the only way to solve a game is by brute force. That's false. See Hex. Or even something like Tic-Tac-Toe on, say a 100x100 board. A search space which utterly dwarves chess, yet, trivially solvable.
>
> and quantum computer may not fit the problems and will not be big enoug in foreseeable future. ans not sure they will scale endlessly. given the random nature of those there is no quarantees on smoot progress
No guarantees something will not happen is very different from it not happening.
> @Ojasya5678 solved in games is well defined mathematical concept
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game
> Basically something tables bases done for endgame
That's not the complete picture. Table bases (but then for all possible positions) would be a case of strongly solving the game.
But that is not the only way to solve a game. Hex, on any N x N size board, for instance is ultra-weakly solved. It can be shown there is a winning strategy for the first player, but for larger boards, no known strategy is known.
>
> And I find it extremely unlikely that it is doable with expected time mandkind will exist and computationally resources needed would (if such resources can exist even in principle) would cost way more than anyone woul be willing to put on it
Yeah, well, 80 years mankind didn't have electronic computers at all. 100 years ago, we didn't even have the concepts of "computable" and "non-computable". It's quite pretentious to presume what we cannot compute today, we cannot compute in the thousands of years ahead.
>
> most complex game solved is 8x8 checkers ans chess search base is about 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 times bigger. solvin checkers took 18 years. It is not enough to make computer billion times faster to reduce estimated time below 1000 years
Now you are making the assumption the only way to solve a game is by brute force. That's false. See Hex. Or even something like Tic-Tac-Toe on, say a 100x100 board. A search space which utterly dwarves chess, yet, trivially solvable.
>
> and quantum computer may not fit the problems and will not be big enoug in foreseeable future. ans not sure they will scale endlessly. given the random nature of those there is no quarantees on smoot progress
No guarantees something will not happen is very different from it not happening.
@Abigail-III - I agree. This thing comes up now and then, and everybody starts talking about technology, 32 piece tablebases, number of atoms in the universe, and so on. It is quite frustrating. All you need is a computationally efficient procedure that tells you how to make the best move in a given position or a proof that black or white is in zugzwang and a strategy to maintain zugzwang or something like that. You can have very trivially solvable games with a game tree of uncountably many nodes.
Moreover, when GMs and other pundits say chess is most likely drawn or that a GM can easily draw a game with white if they decide to, etc., they have no idea what they are talking about. First, the result of a game has nothing to do with statistical evidence; second, we hardly have any statistical evidence.
Moreover, when GMs and other pundits say chess is most likely drawn or that a GM can easily draw a game with white if they decide to, etc., they have no idea what they are talking about. First, the result of a game has nothing to do with statistical evidence; second, we hardly have any statistical evidence.
It's already solved by Google Cloud Computers but kept secret. The Solution is in ZettaBytes in Google Cloud Storage.
@ryan121 I think it is fake
Even assuming that we are using brute force to solve chess, we don't need the entire game tree, as if for one branch of the tree we see that a player has a mate in one then we don't need to look any further into that branch.
Also there are some closed positions that can be solved as book draws without looking at a game tree.
lichess.org/editor/r3k2r/8/1p3p2/pPp1pPp1/P1PpP1Pp/3P3P/8/4K3_b_kq_-_0_1
For instance we can analyze this position to find that it's a book draw, without looking at the sub branch that goes on from the position, so when we reach this position we don't need to look any further into that part of the branch.
Also some positions are symmetric to each other, such that if you solve one position you automatically solve the other position.
lichess.org/editor/rn1qkbnr/ppp2pp1/3p3p/4N3/2B1P3/2N5/PPPP1PPP/R1BbK2R_w_KQkq_-_0_1
lichess.org/editor/r1bBk2r/pppp1ppp/2n5/2b1p3/4n3/3P3P/PPP2PP1/RN1QKBNR_b_KQkq_-_0_1
For instance these two positions are the mirror images of each other, with white to move in the first and black to move in the second, so when we find that white has a forced win in the first positon, we automatically know that black has a forced win in the second position.
Also there are some closed positions that can be solved as book draws without looking at a game tree.
lichess.org/editor/r3k2r/8/1p3p2/pPp1pPp1/P1PpP1Pp/3P3P/8/4K3_b_kq_-_0_1
For instance we can analyze this position to find that it's a book draw, without looking at the sub branch that goes on from the position, so when we reach this position we don't need to look any further into that part of the branch.
Also some positions are symmetric to each other, such that if you solve one position you automatically solve the other position.
lichess.org/editor/rn1qkbnr/ppp2pp1/3p3p/4N3/2B1P3/2N5/PPPP1PPP/R1BbK2R_w_KQkq_-_0_1
lichess.org/editor/r1bBk2r/pppp1ppp/2n5/2b1p3/4n3/3P3P/PPP2PP1/RN1QKBNR_b_KQkq_-_0_1
For instance these two positions are the mirror images of each other, with white to move in the first and black to move in the second, so when we find that white has a forced win in the first positon, we automatically know that black has a forced win in the second position.
@Chess_Training_2021 said in #24:
> The game of chess will never be solved. Reason?
> Well, I won ́t show like the mathematical calculations, but they result in 10 times 10 116 times. But in all the universe, there are only around 10 times 10 80 times atoms.
> This means, there just theoretically not enough place and ressources in the whole universe to save the information about all possible chess games. And the number I told you is only the number for the possible games until move 40...
Not only your numbers are doubtable, your logic is, too.
Consider all integer numbers. There is an infinite amount of them! According to your logic, the problem of multiplying two numbers will never be solvable, because there is not enough memory in the world to store all the possible results. And yet: We *can* multiply two numbers. There is a simple algorithm for multiplying, we all learned it at school.
So convince us: There will never be an algorithm found, which calculates any given chess position into its result.
> The game of chess will never be solved. Reason?
> Well, I won ́t show like the mathematical calculations, but they result in 10 times 10 116 times. But in all the universe, there are only around 10 times 10 80 times atoms.
> This means, there just theoretically not enough place and ressources in the whole universe to save the information about all possible chess games. And the number I told you is only the number for the possible games until move 40...
Not only your numbers are doubtable, your logic is, too.
Consider all integer numbers. There is an infinite amount of them! According to your logic, the problem of multiplying two numbers will never be solvable, because there is not enough memory in the world to store all the possible results. And yet: We *can* multiply two numbers. There is a simple algorithm for multiplying, we all learned it at school.
So convince us: There will never be an algorithm found, which calculates any given chess position into its result.
@Chess_Training_2021 But the universe is expanding all the time, right? So one day chess will be solved.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.