lichess.org
Donate

Can Chess be Solved?

Good demonstration.

yes let's be humble and accept that big finite might be best approximated, at least in the bigger learning problem by internal representations mapping the evolving learninjg through experience.. Like lc0 input space is plunging in a continuum (albeit approximated by some resolution limited rational number approximation).

let us be pragmatic and be realistic about chess intellectual pursuit for humans... it ain't "solving" chess..

Well, I see that as futile and hubris of control freak human stance, like 2 years old babies think the universe is a projection of their will (or so goes the psychological interpretation of their behavior, when they discover the negation vocable intensele... the no!).

The painful discovery that they and the others exist independently of each other, and that no! is needed in communmication between such entitites. Am I delirious?

Good demonstration. yes let's be humble and accept that big finite might be best approximated, at least in the bigger learning problem by internal representations mapping the evolving learninjg through experience.. Like lc0 input space is plunging in a continuum (albeit approximated by some resolution limited rational number approximation). let us be pragmatic and be realistic about chess intellectual pursuit for humans... it ain't "solving" chess.. Well, I see that as futile and hubris of control freak human stance, like 2 years old babies think the universe is a projection of their will (or so goes the psychological interpretation of their behavior, when they discover the negation vocable intensele... the no!). The painful discovery that they and the others exist independently of each other, and that no! is needed in communmication between such entitites. Am I delirious?

I mean more generally. Let' study chess like physics is studying the big universe (that we can't understand fully yet or ever, and that is fine with me, having accepted my limitations in that direction long ago, as a single thinker individual brain.. both brains, the small conscious and the big but potentially stupid one... also potentially logical, but that is research).

Also, if accepting chess is all in our heads, then I would suggest thinking about the ocean more than the stars for the the number of positions. It is more compact than the universe of stars..

I mean more generally. Let' study chess like physics is studying the big universe (that we can't understand fully yet or ever, and that is fine with me, having accepted my limitations in that direction long ago, as a single thinker individual brain.. both brains, the small conscious and the big but potentially stupid one... also potentially logical, but that is research). Also, if accepting chess is all in our heads, then I would suggest thinking about the ocean more than the stars for the the number of positions. It is more compact than the universe of stars..

10^120
!!!!!!!!!!!!

WOW chess sure is an advanced complex game.

10^120 !!!!!!!!!!!! WOW chess sure is an advanced complex game.

A game of chess can be described as a path of linked positions, where each move leads to a new position. The game continues until a decisive position (check mate or draw) is reached. Now, if we can chart all possible paths (like in the tic-tac-toe example), we would have solved the game.

Hooray! In theory, chess can be solved.

> A game of chess can be described as a path of linked positions, where each move leads to a new position. The game continues until a decisive position (check mate or draw) is reached. Now, if we can chart all possible paths (like in the tic-tac-toe example), we would have solved the game. Hooray! In theory, chess can be solved.

So should we only wait for that. Or can we look at the human version of chess.

So should we only wait for that. Or can we look at the human version of chess.

10^120????
Nah, Ima play tic tac toe

10^120???? Nah, Ima play tic tac toe

Actually, 'in theory' not all complete information games can be solved. This assumes an infinite amount of computing power to actually solve the game, as well as storage space to store all the solutions. The problem is that we're not even sure if there's enough computing power in the universe to solve chess. But when you start inventing new, more complicated games, it becomes infinitely more difficult to 'solve' any of them in the finite universe available to humans.

Actually, 'in theory' not all complete information games can be solved. This assumes an infinite amount of computing power to actually solve the game, as well as storage space to store all the solutions. The problem is that we're not even sure if there's enough computing power in the universe to solve chess. But when you start inventing new, more complicated games, it becomes infinitely more difficult to 'solve' any of them in the finite universe available to humans.

@Zenchess said in #8:

Actually, 'in theory' not all complete information games can be solved. This assumes an infinite amount of computing power to actually solve the game, as well as storage space to store all the solutions. The problem is that we're not even sure if there's enough computing power in the universe to solve chess. But when you start inventing new, more complicated games, it becomes infinitely more difficult to 'solve' any of them in the finite universe available to humans.

So "in theory" and at time=infinity or big finite time scale of the order of the "universe" of stars or molecules..

I think my head is too small. and I might squeeze many together to make a bounded set, but not a finite set, transformation, I guess we are all doing it, but not able to perceive all that transformation, we would drool, but we act on it... it is called intuition when expert use it, but something else when a learner use it...

It might be a solving singularity in time? while being finite in absolute and bigger problem than my brain number of synapses... but may if we restrict the problem to the learnable chess or internally representatble in our wet brains, transofmration of the external board reality problem, then this augmented problem (and probably non-exact with respect to the full pure external board problem, but with ever-fog areas for all or us), might have updatable solving methods (theories of learning elements).

As an asymptotic problem I think we might get more interesting results by looking inside the big potentially stupid brain black box. We already have in machina models for that neglected part of the problem of chess theory of learning (we have mostly a conscious theory of conscious learning, stuck in its bubble on one hand, and some mystifying life span experience will compensate black box on the other hand (MFTL).

@Zenchess said in #8: > Actually, 'in theory' not all complete information games can be solved. This assumes an infinite amount of computing power to actually solve the game, as well as storage space to store all the solutions. The problem is that we're not even sure if there's enough computing power in the universe to solve chess. But when you start inventing new, more complicated games, it becomes infinitely more difficult to 'solve' any of them in the finite universe available to humans. So "in theory" and at time=infinity or big finite time scale of the order of the "universe" of stars or molecules.. I think my head is too small. and I might squeeze many together to make a bounded set, but not a finite set, transformation, I guess we are all doing it, but not able to perceive all that transformation, we would drool, but we act on it... it is called intuition when expert use it, but something else when a learner use it... It might be a solving singularity in time? while being finite in absolute and bigger problem than my brain number of synapses... but may if we restrict the problem to the learnable chess or internally representatble in our wet brains, transofmration of the external board reality problem, then this augmented problem (and probably non-exact with respect to the full pure external board problem, but with ever-fog areas for all or us), might have updatable solving methods (theories of learning elements). As an asymptotic problem I think we might get more interesting results by looking inside the big potentially stupid brain black box. We already have in machina models for that neglected part of the problem of chess theory of learning (we have mostly a conscious theory of conscious learning, stuck in its bubble on one hand, and some mystifying life span experience will compensate black box on the other hand (MFTL).

@dboing said in #9:

So "in theory" and at time=infinity or big finite time scale of the order of the "universe" of stars or molecules..

Right, but the title question was simply, "Can chess be solved?" without restriction as to who solves it or how long it takes. Maybe some millennium a new way to easily solve problems could be found.

@dboing said in #9: > So "in theory" and at time=infinity or big finite time scale of the order of the "universe" of stars or molecules.. Right, but the title question was simply, "Can chess be solved?" without restriction as to who solves it or how long it takes. Maybe some millennium a new way to easily solve problems could be found.