Is anyone here interested in solving chess for a guaranteed win, loss,
or draw?

entrokey wrote:
Is anyone here interested in solving chess for a guaranteed win, loss,
or draw?


A guaranteed loss is very easy:

"I resign"

In theory it can be solved, but in practice it needs more computing
power than is currently available and is likely to be available in the
forseable future.

--
Dave (from the UK)

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form:
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.

http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/ - a Free open-source Chess Database

entrokey wrote:
Is anyone here interested in solving chess for a guaranteed win, loss,
or draw?

Many people are. However, the final solution is a LONG way away.

Almost three years ago, it took one dedicated person about 5 months of
top-of-the-line CPU power and about 2 TB of data just to solve all
possible combinations of positions with just six pieces on the board
(including the two Kings).

Solving for all 32 pieces? Definitely won't happen in our lifetimes....

jm

On 21 Jan 2007 13:55:34 -0800, "entrokey" wrote:

Is anyone here interested in solving chess for a guaranteed win, loss,
or draw?
I think it can't be done, now or ever. See:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/Chessgames.htm


www.iinet.com.au/~ray

Ray Johnstone wrote:
On 21 Jan 2007 13:55:34 -0800, "entrokey" wrote:


Is anyone here interested in solving chess for a guaranteed win, loss,
or draw?

I think it can't be done, now or ever. See:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/Chessgames.htm


www.iinet.com.au/~ray

That paper discusses the number of legal moves but to a game could be
trucated a lot quicker than that. Put a queen+king vs king on a board
and they could move randomly for 50 moves before there is a draw. But
there is a forced mate in 12 or so. An endgame tablebase will find that
move, sequence. Hence I think the numbers given are gross
over-estimates. So it might be a lot more soluble than those papers
would suggest.

--
Dave (from the UK)

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form:
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.

http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/ - a Free open-source Chess Database

hi John,

Depends upon your patience and what age you plan to reach.
According to my calculation to reach 10^43 is around the year 2066 when the
law of Moore extrapolates
correctly and results each 18 months in a doubling of hardware speed.

Note that it is quite questionable whether that law of Moore holds true.

Vincent

wrote in message
oups.com...
entrokey wrote:
Is anyone here interested in solving chess for a guaranteed win, loss,
or draw?

Many people are. However, the final solution is a LONG way away.

Almost three years ago, it took one dedicated person about 5 months of
top-of-the-line CPU power and about 2 TB of data just to solve all
possible combinations of positions with just six pieces on the board
(including the two Kings).

Solving for all 32 pieces? Definitely won't happen in our lifetimes....

jm

Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
hi John,

Depends upon your patience and what age you plan to reach.
According to my calculation to reach 10^43 is around the year 2066 when the
law of Moore extrapolates
correctly and results each 18 months in a doubling of hardware speed.

Note that it is quite questionable whether that law of Moore holds true.

Vincent

Yes, very questionable indeed since Moore's law is not only a
theoretical one but also a physical one. How small can electronics get?
Sub-atomic? Possibly -- I have no idea.

But you only refer to hardware speed. What about storage, which is just
as important for solving this problem?

And I'll be very pleased if I make it to 2050. :-)

jm

This is not the first time I have brought up this question to a group.
Thanks for the thoughtful answers.
In any event, is anyone interested in finding "the fastest general way"
to solve chess?
Not a particularly interesting question but a mathematical one I wanted
to work on.
Thanks,

On 21 Jan 2007 13:55:34 -0800, "entrokey" wrote:

Is anyone here interested in solving chess for a guaranteed win, loss,
or draw?

Maybe 6 or 7 years ago I firmly believed that chess would be solved.
Now computers which are more powerful than ever are showing that maybe
chess can't be solved. Strange how it seems to turn out that way.

EZoto

wrote in message
oups.com...
entrokey wrote:
Is anyone here interested in solving chess for a guaranteed win, loss,
or draw?

Many people are. However, the final solution is a LONG way away.

Almost three years ago, it took one dedicated person about 5 months of
top-of-the-line CPU power and about 2 TB of data just to solve all
possible combinations of positions with just six pieces on the board
(including the two Kings).

Solving for all 32 pieces? Definitely won't happen in our lifetimes....

jm

You don't really need to. All you need to do is solve up to about a one-pawn
advantage. A 2500 player could beat almost anyone in the world with those
odds.