*** Chess Low Content Thread *** - Page 13 - Chess and Board Game Strategy

Even if you could solve it, you could not store the tree because you would need more bits than atoms in the universe. And even if it was solved, the impact on practical play would be minimal because we know the solution already (it's a draw) and computers are incredibly strong without knowing the exact solution. It would change nothing to know that 1. e4 is better than 1. d4 if no one could remember the gazillions of variations to prove that.
How far we are from actually solving the game can be seen by the fact that it is solved for positions with 6 or less men, but not for 7 (by a mile).

Quote

02-09-2010 , 12:26 PM

#302

br3nt00

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 3,664

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noir_Desir

Even if you could solve it, you could not store the tree because you would need more bits than atoms in the universe. And even if it was solved, the impact on practical play would be minimal because we know the solution already (it's a draw) and computers are incredibly strong without knowing the exact solution. It would change nothing to know that 1. e4 is better than 1. d4 if no one could remember the gazillions of variations to prove that.
How far we are from actually solving the game can be seen by the fact that it is solved for positions with 6 or less men, but not for 7 (by a mile).

thats the question, even if you could solve it. well, why cant we solve it / why hasn't it been solved?

im not talking about its practical applications, because i know that they are mute, since humans cant memorize so many combos.

also, if its not solved, how do u know the solution is a draw?

Quote

02-09-2010 , 12:32 PM

#303

RoundTower

ɹǝʍoʇpunoɹ

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 14,563

Quote:

Originally Posted by br3nt00

i didnt want to just bust into this subforum and make a thread, so i figured id ask the question in here:

i know that the total # of combinations in the game of chess is larger than avogadro's number, which is a ton...

but if the number of total possible combinations is less than infinite, that makes chess a solvable game, correct? and with today's computing power, how come chess is not yet a solved game?

it's not infinite, but it's really, really ****ing big

in before someone claims it is more than the number of atoms in the universe

Quote

02-09-2010 , 12:33 PM

#304

RoundTower

ɹǝʍoʇpunoɹ

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 14,563

damn it, got distracted and failed

Quote

02-09-2010 , 12:47 PM

#305

swingdoc

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 3,531

Quote:

Originally Posted by br3nt00

1. We currently don't have the computing power to be able to solve it. 2. Most players are willing to assume the game is drawn given the current data. Having white at the top level is only worth something like +32 ELO (~56% score between equally strong players) and those guys play so well that if the game were decisive with perfect play, I'd expect a much more lopsided score.

Quote

02-09-2010 , 08:19 PM

#306

All-inMcLovin

Wholesome Mod

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 49,532

Quote:

Originally Posted by swingdoc

I agree with this.

Fischer said once (something along the lines of) that if he had a 100 game match vs. God that it would be 50-50, and I took that as him saying that chess is a draw.

Quote

02-09-2010 , 09:42 PM

#307

Sholar

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,357

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-inMcLovin

I agree with this.

Fischer said once (something along the lines of) that if he had a 100 game match vs. God that it would be 50-50, and I took that as him saying that chess is a draw.

Heh. God wins the match at +45 =11 -0 or so, and that's because it's a merciful God. (Who was happy to agree to short draws for rest on the Sabbath days.)

But yeah, chess is almost certainly a draw; as a practical matter it remains unsolved (from a game-theoretic point of view) due to its size.

Quote

02-09-2010 , 09:45 PM

#308

garcia1000

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 7,855

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-inMcLovin

I agree with this.

Fischer said once (something along the lines of) that if he had a 100 game match vs. God that it would be 50-50, and I took that as him saying that chess is a draw.

I think that Fischer couldn't go 50-50 with Rybka, even.

Quote

02-09-2010 , 10:35 PM

#309

DaMaGor

journeyman

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 243

Quote:

Originally Posted by garcia1000

I think that Fischer couldn't go 50-50 with Rybka, even.

If it meant 50 losses and 50 draws, maybe, but that's still being generous. How does Rybka compare to Hydra? I assume Fischer at his peak, with modern training especially, but even without it, would be substantially stronger than Michael Adams.

Quote

02-10-2010 , 04:34 AM

#310

Dire

banned

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 8,581

Quote:

Originally Posted by br3nt00

This question is kind of analogous to asking: The distance from Earth to [the closest galaxy to the Milky Way] Andromeda is finite. And we have some really fast speed walkers. Why hasn't anybody walked to Andromeda yet?

But now think about the fact that the average speed walker could walk back and fourth to Andromeda a trillion trillion trillion (as in a trillion times a trillion times a trillion) times in vastly less time than than it would take modern computing technology to solve chess.

Quote

02-12-2010 , 03:54 PM

#311

br3nt00

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 3,664

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dire

i see what you're saying, but is that really the case?

i mean, modern desktops for like 1k have a lot of computing power, what about like some big database system working 24/7 for a year or something?

Quote

02-12-2010 , 09:34 PM

#312

Sholar

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,357

Quote:

Originally Posted by br3nt00

i see what you're saying, but is that really the case?

i mean, modern desktops for like 1k have a lot of computing power, what about like some big database system working 24/7 until the sun expands and consumes the earth or something?

Would be closer to the time required. (Ignoring issues of storing the information.)

Quote

02-15-2010 , 03:33 AM

#313

Noir_Desir

veteran

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 2,333

Quote:

Originally Posted by br3nt00

i mean, modern desktops for like 1k have a lot of computing power, what about like some big database system working 24/7 for a year or something?

They are. Currently they are in the process of solving 7-men positions. Check back in a few years for those.

Quote

02-15-2010 , 05:18 PM

#314

mephisto

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,372

I purchased the Shredder pro program on my itouch and I like it a lot so far. There are 1,000 tactical puzzles to solve and so far I've gone through 100+. It's not easy to get full points because the longer you take, the less points (out of 10) you get.

The max ELO on the shredder light is 1500 but supposedly the pro version is 2600 ELO. I haven't played a full game against it so far so I can't verify that claim.

Overall a very nice program, try it out!

Quote

02-18-2010 , 12:02 AM

#315

Randomness28

old hand

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,430

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaMaGor

I think Michael Adams of today playing Fischer at his peak wouldn't even be close. Adams would destroy him (at least at first until Fischer adapts to a new game). Theory has evolved so so much since the 70s that I'm fairly confident that a solid FM or maybe even NM would pounce Fischer of the 70s. And that is no slight against Fischer.. The same would go for all past champions.

Quote

02-18-2010 , 12:12 AM

#316

RoundTower

ɹǝʍoʇpunoɹ

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 14,563

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomness28

wow this is taking it just way too far. Theory has very little to do with it, I think Fischer crushes a strong 2010 FM as Black after say 1. e4 a6. Maybe it would be different if you sent the FM back to 1970, prepared him with today's opening knowledge of the then-fashionable lines, and let Fischer think he was just playing another Russian GM. But that hypothetical isn't really fair.

On the other hand, I think Michael Adams at his peak does indeed destroy Fischer if 1970-Fischer was transported to 1995. But it's such an enormous enormous difference between 2350 and 2750.

Quote

02-20-2010 , 12:30 AM

#317

All-inMcLovin

Wholesome Mod

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 49,532

+1 for Taking way too far.

Fischer was the first true professional and showed the way for all those who became serious Grandmasters after him.

To compare any current GM with him, regarding "playing strength" or "who is better?" is rather silly.

Quote

02-20-2010 , 01:19 AM

#318

s33w33d

adept

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 722

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomness28

Well yes, a big problem is that Fischer would probably play lines which just have big improvements lurking around the corner. Adams might be a bad example, though, since he's probably one of the most likely players to not be going into bookish stuff.

I still think I absolutely destroy Morphy, but past that, I'm not so sure. Botvinnik would be a ton stronger today. Tal, a ton weaker.

Quote

02-20-2010 , 02:52 AM

#319

smilingbill

2011 2+2 Chess Champion

Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,458

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomness28

a solid FM or maybe even NM would pounce Fischer of the 70s.

I'm a FM. Fischer of the 70s was obviously eons better than me, understood openings way better and would roll with any theoretical punches well enough to crush me.

Quote

02-20-2010 , 02:27 PM

#320

2/325Falcon

Conehead

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 21,907

Quote:

Originally Posted by mephisto

Downloaded Shredder Lite, thx.

Quote

02-21-2010 , 11:33 AM

#321

mephisto

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,372

^I've finished around 200 tactical problems out of 1000 thus far in the pro version. Love love love this program.

Quote

02-21-2010 , 10:40 PM

#322

vulturesrow

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 11,101

Just reinstalled Chessbase and Fritz, versions 6 and 8 respectively, and then got a good laugh by going to the CB homepage to see what the newest versions are numbered.

But for my needs I think older will be just fine.

PS How is the chess apps selection on Android phones?

Quote

02-22-2010 , 08:45 AM

#323

Noir_Desir

veteran

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 2,333

I realized lately that i have some pet peeves about chess opponents, maybe someone shares them:

1. idiotic draw offers, especially by juniors (i forgive them, but someone has to teach them that). You don't offer a draw if you're 300 points lower rated and an exchange down, just because you moved your Queen back to the square it just came from. If you're 300 points lower rated, you better have a winning position to offer a draw. Even in a drawn position imo it's on the higher rated player to offer the draw, but i may be too strict on etiquette here.

2. resigning when it's not your move. It interferes with my thinking process and messes up the scoresheet.