Title says it all. As a chess n00b I don't understand how, with set pieces with limited moves, and a very limited board size, why has one optimal/perfect strategy not emerged over the centuries?

lets ship this to the chess forum imo

furst
secnd

The number of possible games is enormously large. "Shannon's number", 10^120, is an estimate of the lower bound on the gametree complexity of chess, i.e. the number of possible games. By contrast, the number of atoms in the observable universe is estimated at about 10^80, so there are around 10 thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion times more possible games of chess than atoms in the universe. Some of the games transpose and a lot of the moves aren't worthy of consideration, but there are still a huge number of possible ways a game can go.

1. Chess is most likely a draw.

There are many, many plans, piece & pawn configurations and (frequently) moves that maintain this balance. In other words, there likely isn't a single sequence of moves that is the 'solution' to chess so you can't simply find a specific few moves.

2. There are a LOT of possible, legal positions.

Brute force computation just isn't possible at this point. It might not ever be.

QFT

It is possible to construct a decision tree involving the game of chase, but it is so large that by the time a computer is invented to solve it, no one will give a **** about chess because we will have a virtual reality Braveheart simulator that will be much more interesting than that old game

I want to be the Irish guy that talks to god, and claims that he owns the island. Braveheart simulator solving sounds much more exciting than a 10,000 move game that I'll never be able to memorize, nevermind the variations.

How many moves are estimated for the perfect attack vs perfect defense match of truth? Or will it turn out like the pi calculator?

After seeing this thread and wondering why chess isn't solved myself, i let my super duper pentium XX computer calculate for about 2 hours and he came up with the solution to chess.

Here it is: http://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game...r.php?id=16508

cliffnotes: chess is a draw.

lol loydaments

I bet bo knows chess

I have solved chess but I won't post the solution.

.

lol

lol fermataments

No one answered the OP's question, really. He wants to know why chess isn't solved. You can tell him that there are more possible games than there are atoms in the universe, but why is that the case?

OP, look at a chess set with all of the pieces on their original squares. There are eight pawns on each side, each of which can either move one square forward or two squares forward on its first move. Additionally, each side's knights can hop toward the center or toward the edge of the board on their first moves. So in the starting position White has 20 different possible moves (8 pawns * 2 moves per pawn + 2 knights * 2 moves per knight = 20 moves).

For each first move that White makes, Black can reply in one of 20 ways himself. So the number of possible chess positions after one move by each side is 20^2, or 400. Now, as the pieces move into play, they get traded off, but they also have more mobility. To make things very simple, let's just imagine that a game of chess lasts for 50 moves and each side has 20 possible moves on each turn. Then the number of positions after White makes his second move is 20^3 (20 * 20 * 20), the number of positions after Black responds is 20^4 (20 * 20 * 20 * 20), etc., and there are 20^50 possible 50-move games if we ignore transpositions (different sequences of moves that lead to the same position).

20^50 is a bit more than 10^65, which is a 1 with 65 zeros after it. That's one trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Even if a computer could search a trillion positions per second it would take it a trillion trillion trillion trillion seconds to solve chess. That's a billion trillion times the age of the universe.

Im sorry but the game of chess IS solved. They've made several programs now that can beat the best masters.

done and done

You don't know what "solved" means. The fact that the stronger engines tear the weaker engines apart demonstrates how far chess is from being solved.

According to my iphone, the solution is

1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 e6 3. Nc3 Be7 4. e4 Nf6 5. ed ed 6. Bd3 0-0 7. Nf3 Be6 8. 0-0 Nc6 9. Re1 Re8 10. a4 a5 11. b3 Nb4 12. Be2 Nc6 13. Ra2 Ne4 14. Nb5 Rc8 15. c3 Nb8 16. Nd2 Nxd2 17. Rxd2 Nc6 18. Bg4 Bxg4 19. Qxg4 Bf8 20. Rxe8 Qxe8 21. Re2 Qd8 22. Bg5 h5 23. Qf5 f6 24. Qe6+ Kh8 25. Bf4 Be7 26. Qf7 h4 27. Re3 Qd7 28. Nxc7 Rxc7 29. Bxc7 Qxc7 30. Qxd5 g5 31. Qf7 Qd6 32. Re1 Qa3 33. Qe8+ Kg7 34. d5 Ne5 35. Qb5 Kf7 36. Rf1 h3 37. Qxb7 hxg2 38. Rd1 Kg6 39. Kxh2 Bd6 40. Rf1 Qb2 41. Qa6 Qxc3 42. Qxd6 Qf3+ 43. Kg1 Qg4+ 44. Kh1 Qf3+ 45. Kg1 Qg4+ 46. Kh1 Qf3+ 47. Kg1 1/2-1/2

I'm convinced. The Ra2-d2-e2-e3-e1-f1-d1-f1 maneuver was incredibly deep.

Lol. you wanna know how long itll take 10,000 monkeys to type shakespeares complete works? 10,000 monkeys banging on a keyboard will never REALLY type out the complete works of shakespeare because it would take so long that they will have evolved and walked away from the computers to go make fire before getting through a single play.

/real answer in a Google interview

As soon as my white lab coat comes back from the dry cleaners, and I get my beakers and bunsen burners back from the pawnshop, this chess problem will be solved but quick. My word is my bond.

Chess isn't solved, but what are the chances that a perfect game has been played at some point? Assuming optimal play leads to a draw in chess, all that would be required is that each move made in the game leads to a game theoretic drawn position. So there could be many different "perfect games". Not that either player, or anyone else, would have known the game was played perfectly.

I don't know how to judge the likelihood of such a game being played, where each side keeps the draw in hand at all times. Seems possible though. Might have even been considered as nothing special when it happened, a boring and unenterprising grandmaster draw. Yet secretly, a perfect game.

I would say it has happened thousands of times, if not more.

Even if that's the case there's still mileage in disturbing the equilibrium if you can play the resulting position better than your opponent (which is likely if you've studied the variations in depth).

Depends if you count 1. e4 draw agreed as perfect. If the final position is required to be 'trivially drawn' whatever that means then I suspect not, but don't have anything other than a pure guess to base it on