
Main
Date: 09 Sep 2005 22:54:34
From: entropy
Subject: solve for chess

In Matiyasevich's book on Hilbert's 10th problem, there was a passage on how it was undecidable for a result of a game to be determined from an arbitrary game. Is it still possible for a unavoidable algorithm/gambit for a win/loss/stalemat for either black or white to be determined. If so, what is computational complexity of solving chess?  entropy
 Free Avlerchess Glass Chess Set  Find out how you can get a free glass chess set from us.


Date: 09 Sep 2005 22:25:23
From:
Subject: Re: solve for chess

Of course, strictly speaking chess can be solved. It is a finite game, with a specific starting point and a limited set of moves that can be made from any position. Therefore, it is POSSIBLE to determine best play for any position by analyzing the tree of all possible moves for that position all the way out to their gameending state, exactly like endgame databases do now. However, EGDBs are at this time only created for up to 6 pieces on the board. It's a VERY LONG WAY until we have the answer for all 32 pieces. It's taken about 68 years just to go from 5 to 6 pieces as being the "state of the art", because of the necessary computation time and storage requirements. How long will it take to get to 32 pieces? Even if progress is linear (and it won't be), at best it's going to take close to 200 years before chess is solved! jm

 
Date: 10 Sep 2005 10:23:58
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: solve for chess

ContentTransferEncoding: 8Bit JVMerlino@aol.com wrote: >However, EGDBs are at this time only created for up to 6 pieces on the >board. It's a VERY LONG WAY until we have the answer for all 32 pieces. >It's taken about 68 years just to go from 5 to 6 pieces as being the >"state of the art", because of the necessary computation time and >storage requirements. I wasn't aware of the entire 6 man Nalimov tablebases being completed. Do you have a source and a hard figure for how many bytes it takes to hold all of the 3man, 4man, 5man and 6man Nalimov tablebases? >How long will it take to get to 32 pieces? Even if progress is linear >(and it won't be), at best it's going to take close to 200 years before >chess is solved! Complete 3 man Nalimov Tablebase...80 kB (measured) Complete 3+4 man Nalimov Tablebases...30 MB (measured) Complete 3+4+5 man Nalimov Tablebases...7.5 GB (measured) Complete 3+4+5+6 man Nalimov Tablebases...12 TB (estimated) Complete 3+4+5+6+7 man Nalimov Tablebases...200600 TB (estimated) Complete 3+4+5+6+7+8 man Nalimov Tablebase...40180 PB (estimated) ... Complete 3+4+5+...+30+31+32 man Nalimov Tatablebases...???? I welcome any estimates that are better than the ones above, and I especially welcome anyone who has the courage to give me an estimate to replace the ??? above. I would also very much like some data on how long it takes/took to generate each set.  Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >  BTW, Here is a handy reference for expressing large numbers: ************************************************************* SHORT VERSION: k kilo 1.0E+3 x1,000 Thousand(US,UK) M mega 1.0E+6 x1,000,000 Million (US,UK) G giga 1.0E+9 x1,000,000,000 Billion(US) T tera 1.0E+12 x1,000,000,000,000 Trillion(US), Billion(UK) P peta 1.0E+15 x1,000,000,000,000,000 Quadrillion(US) E exa 1.0E+18 x1,000,000,000,000,000,000 Quintillion(US), Trillion(UK) Z zetta 1.0E+21 x1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Sextillion(US) Y yotta 1.0E+24 x1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Septillion(US), Quadrillion(UK) Note: vendeka, xenna, xenno, and vendeko are bogus. Before you try using them, please read these pages: [ http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/units.htm#prefix ] [ http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/culture.htm#zillion ] [ http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html ] [ http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html ] LONG VERSION: ************************************************************* NAMED POWERS OF TEN  US VERSION   N/A 1.0E+36 N/A 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000000 000 000 000  N/A 1.0E+33 decillion 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000000 000 000  N/A 1.0E+30 N/A 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000000 000  N/A 1.0E+27 illion 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000000 Y yotta 1.0E+24 septillion 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 Z zetta 1.0E+21 sextillion 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 E exa 1.0E+18 quintillion 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 P peta 1.0E+15 quadrillion 1 000 000 000 000 000 T tera 1.0E+12 trillion 1 000 000 000 000 G giga 1.0E+9 billion 1 000 000 000 M mega 1.0E+6 million 1 000 000 k kilo 1.0E+3 thousand 1 000 h hecto 1.0E+2 hundred 100 da deca 1.0E+1 ten 10 d deci 1.0E1 tenth 0.1 c centi 1.0E2 hundredth 0.01 m milli 1.0E3 thousandth 0.001 µ micro 1.0E6 millionth 0.000 001 n nano 1.0E9 billionth 0.000 000 001 p pico 1.0E12 trillionth 0.000 000 000 001 f femto 1.0E15 quadrillionth 0.000 000 000 000 001 a atto 1.0E18 quintillionth 0.000 000 000 000 000 001 z zepto 1.0E21 sextillionth 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 001 y yo 1.0E24 septillionth 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001  N/A 1.0E27 illionth 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001  N/A 1.0E30 N/A 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001  N/A 1.0E33 decillionth 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001  N/A 1.0E36 N/A 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001 Note: vendeka, xenna, xenno, and vendeko are bogus. Before you try using them, please read these pages: [ http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/units.htm#prefix ] [ http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/culture.htm#zillion ] [ http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html ] [ http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html ] ************************************************************* NAMED POWERS OF TEN  UK VERSION   N/A 1.0E+36 sextillion 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000000 000 000 000  N/A 1.0E+33 N/A 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000000 000 000  N/A 1.0E+30 quintillion 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000000 000  N/A 1.0E+27 N/A 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000000 Y yotta 1.0E+24 quadrillion 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 Z zetta 1.0E+21 N/A 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 E exa 1.0E+18 trillion 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 P peta 1.0E+15 N/A 1 000 000 000 000 000 T tera 1.0E+12 billion 1 000 000 000 000 G giga 1.0E+9 milliard 1 000 000 000 M mega 1.0E+6 million 1 000 000 k kilo 1.0E+3 thousand 1 000 h hecto 1.0E+2 hundred 100 da deca 1.0E+1 ten 10 d deci 1.0E1 tenth 0.1 c centi 1.0E2 hundredth 0.01 m milli 1.0E3 thousandth 0.001 µ micro 1.0E6 millionth 0.000 001 n nano 1.0E9 milliardh 0.000 000 001 p pico 1.0E12 billionthh 0.000 000 000 001 f femto 1.0E15 N/A 0.000 000 000 000 001 a atto 1.0E18 trillionth 0.000 000 000 000 000 001 z zepto 1.0E21 N/A 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 001 y yo 1.0E24 quadrillionth 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001  N/A 1.0E27 N/A 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001  N/A 1.0E30 quintillionth 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001  N/A 1.0E33 N/A 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001  N/A 1.0E36 sextillionth 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001 Note: vendeka, xenna, xenno, and vendeko are bogus. Before you try using them, please read these pages: [ http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/units.htm#prefix ] [ http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/culture.htm#zillion ] [ http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html ] [ http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html ] *************************************************************  Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >

  
Date: 12 Sep 2005 13:54:25
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: solve for chess

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote: > T tera 1.0E+12 billion 1 000 000 000 000 > G giga 1.0E+9 milliard 1 000 000 000 In the UK, it's becoming much more common to use `billion' for 10^9, as in the US. Dave.  David Richerby Lead Sushi (TM): it's like a raw fish www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ that weighs a ton!

 
Date: 12 Sep 2005 08:31:12
From: Simon Krahnke
Subject: Re: solve for chess

* <msadkins04@yahoo.com > (04:55) schrieb: > JVMerlino@aol.com wrote: > >> You're wrong, and it's very simple to prove. >> >> But, to start with the definition of "best play" that you asked for: >>  For any position that can be shown as won by the side to move, it is >> the move(s) that result in the shortest mate. > > Can't you read? I'm not talking about forced mates. But it's all about forced mates. > What if the position can't be "shown as won"? Most positions in chess > are open to win, loss, or draw, and many others are open to two of > these: No there aren't. Every position in chess is either a forced win for white or for black, or a forced draw. > Even in a position permitting forced mate, while it is true that any > move leading to mate is good, there may be more than one move sequence > which results in mate in a minimum number of moves. Which is the > "best" and why? Any is. This is silly. No one demands there is a single best move in every position. Of course there may be many perfect games of chess. But they all end the same. > And you have yet to meaningfully define this even for forced mate > positions, much less for arbitrary positions! To say that chess is > "solved", incidentally, means that there is an algorithm for winning > from the starting position. No, it doesn't mean that. > There is not, for either side. There is none yet, and may never be. But theoretically it is possible. mfg, simon .... l

 
Date: 13 Sep 2005 02:56:55
From: Simon Krahnke
Subject: Re: solve for chess

* <msadkins04@yahoo.com > (18:38) schrieb: > Simon Krahnke wrote: >> * <msadkins04@yahoo.com> (04:55) schrieb: >>> What if the position can't be "shown as won"? Most positions in chess >>> are open to win, loss, or draw, and many others are open to two of >>> these: >> >> No there aren't. Every position in chess is either a forced win for >> white or for black, or a forced draw. > > It isn't. Take a look at the very first position, the starting > position. Is that a forced mate for White, a forced mate for Black, or > a forced draw? (Answer, none of the above.) It's a forced win for black. Yes, I can prove that, but won't. > You don't seem to know what "forced mate" or "forced draw" means. Well, let's check if you know. > It doesn't mean that the game will eventually end in a mate for > *someone* or else in a draw. If White has a forced mate, and Black is > subject to forced mate, it means that, in the current position, every > legal move possible to Black can be followed by a move by White which > leads to Black being mated, and that this is true for every position > subsequent to this. If, on the other hand, Black is free to choose, in > a given position, from moves which do not satisfy these conditions, he > is not subject to a forced mate. Whoa, you not only know it, you dare to publish it. > Never mind "best" moves  it's easy to see that in most chess > positions, there are not even provably good moves. There are. > There are two kinds of moves in chess commonly called "good": > > (1) Provably good moves. These include, for example, moves necessary > to execute a forced mate. And that includes at least one move in every position that is no forced win for the opposite color. > (2) Heuristically good moves. These are irrelevant when talking about solving chess. Heuristics can only help on solving chess faster. > These are based on heuristic, or rule of thumb evaluations which use > *relatively short term* algorithms weighing gains in material and/or > position. By "relatively short term" I mean evaluations which end with > some future position which is not endofgame. A Heuristic might as well be perfect. > Most positions in chess are ambiguous in that they permit a win, loss, > or draw; in these cases, knowledge of game outcome depends upon the > future move sequence and is not strictly inherent to the current > position; Of course it is. > and half of the future movesequence is determined by your > opponent. Thus, the data necessary to evaluate the position in any > provable manner is missing; it is unknown and unknowable if your > opponent is free to choose among alternatives that lead to *different* > game outcomes. That's just a finite number and I could look at all of them. > In most chess positions, therefore, there are no provably good moves, > but only heuristically good moves, which may not be objectively good > moves. What exactly are these magic unsolvable positions and how do identify them? >>> Even in a position permitting forced mate, while it is true that any >>> move leading to mate is good, there may be more than one move sequence >>> which results in mate in a minimum number of moves. Which is the >>> "best" and why? >> >> Any is. This is silly. No one demands there is a single best move in >> every position. Of course there may be many perfect games of chess. But >> they all end the same. > > Evidently you don't know what the word "best" means. To say that there > is "more than one best move" in a given position is an abuse of > language. If there is a "best" move there is only one; otherwise, > there are merely good moves or winning moves. I said it's silly. >>> And you have yet to meaningfully define this even for forced mate >>> positions, much less for arbitrary positions! To say that chess is >>> "solved", incidentally, means that there is an algorithm for winning >>> from the starting position. >> >> No, it doesn't mean that. > > Certainly it does. Since chess is a forced win for black, it's obvious there is no such algorithm. None the less, proving this would solve chess. > No, theoretically it is impossible, because the starting position of > chess does not provide sufficient data, in and of itself, for such an > algorithm; only after the future move sequence has caused the game to > reach a point where provably good moves (e.g., a forced mate) exists, > is an algorithm possible; and as long as the future move sequence is > halfdetermined by the moves of an opponent which are unknown and > unknowable in advance, that data is not available. So there's data in solved positions that's not in the starting position? mfg, simon .... l

 
Date: 18 Sep 2005 20:24:12
From: Martin Moller Pedersen
Subject: Re: solve for chess

In <1126329923.040657.262420@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com > JVMerlino@aol.com writes: >Of course, strictly speaking chess can be solved. It is a finite game, >with a specific starting point and a limited set of moves that can be >made from any position. Therefore, it is POSSIBLE to determine best >play for any position by analyzing the tree of all possible moves for >that position all the way out to their gameending state, exactly like >endgame databases do now. >However, EGDBs are at this time only created for up to 6 pieces on the >board. It's a VERY LONG WAY until we have the answer for all 32 pieces. >It's taken about 68 years just to go from 5 to 6 pieces as being the >"state of the art", because of the necessary computation time and >storage requirements. >How long will it take to get to 32 pieces? Even if progress is linear >(and it won't be), at best it's going to take close to 200 years before >chess is solved! And I don't think it is possible to store the results without using all atoms in the universe. /Martin

  
Date: 19 Sep 2005 07:28:19
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: solve for chess

Martin Moller Pedersen wrote: > >JVMerlino@aol.com writes: > >>Of course, strictly speaking chess can be solved. It is a finite game, >>with a specific starting point and a limited set of moves that can be >>made from any position. Therefore, it is POSSIBLE to determine best >>play for any position by analyzing the tree of all possible moves for >>that position all the way out to their gameending state, exactly like >>endgame databases do now. > >>However, EGDBs are at this time only created for up to 6 pieces on the >>board. It's a VERY LONG WAY until we have the answer for all 32 pieces. >>It's taken about 68 years just to go from 5 to 6 pieces as being the >>"state of the art", because of the necessary computation time and >>storage requirements. > >>How long will it take to get to 32 pieces? Even if progress is linear >>(and it won't be), at best it's going to take close to 200 years before >>chess is solved! > >And I don't think it is possible to store the results without using all >atoms in the universe. You appear to be assuming that one can only store one bit of information per atom  a rather dubious assumption. A one kilogram storage unit that occupies one liter of space can store a maximum of 2^1031 bits by encoding information in the spin, speed and direction of the particles inside the storage unit. Or you can simply build a quaunntum computer with a couple of hundred qubits of storage. Do a web search on "Quantum Computing" and "Black Hole Computing"...

   
Date: 19 Sep 2005 09:19:06
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: solve for chess

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote: > Martin Moller Pedersen wrote: >> And I don't think it is possible to store the results without using all >> atoms in the universe. > > You appear to be assuming that one can only store one bit of > information per atom  a rather dubious assumption. A one kilogram > storage unit that occupies one liter of space can store a maximum of > 2^1031 bits by encoding information in the spin, speed and direction of > the particles inside the storage unit. The key word here may well be `maximum'... > Or you can simply build a quaunntum computer with a couple of hundred > qubits of storage. This must be some strange new meaning of the word `simply' that I wasn't previously aware of. Dave.  David Richerby Swiss Homicidal Apple (TM): it's like www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a tasty fruit but it wants to kill you and it's made in Switzerland!

    
Date: 19 Sep 2005 13:43:35
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: solve for chess

David Richerby wrote: > >Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote: > >> Martin Moller Pedersen wrote: >>> And I don't think it is possible to store the results without using all >>> atoms in the universe. >> >> You appear to be assuming that one can only store one bit of >> information per atom  a rather dubious assumption. A one kilogram >> storage unit that occupies one liter of space can store a maximum of >> 2^1031 bits by encoding information in the spin, speed and direction of >> the particles inside the storage unit. > >The key word here may well be `maximum'... > >> Or you can simply build a quaunntum computer with a couple of hundred >> qubits of storage. > >This must be some strange new meaning of the word `simply' that I wasn't >previously aware of. (Laughs) I use the Dilbert Pointyhaired Boss definition of "Simple"; If I don't know how to do it, it must be easy! :)


Date: 10 Sep 2005 09:57:15
From:
Subject: Re: solve for chess

> I wasn't aware of the entire 6 man Nalimov tablebases being completed. > Do you have a source and a hard figure for how many bytes it takes > to hold all of the 3man, 4man, 5man and 6man Nalimov tablebases? IIRC, the entire 6man tablebases in De Koning format were completed quite some time ago (meaning, possibly as much as a year ago) by Marc Bourzutschky. I do not know how much space they take up, but I have a vague memory of somebody saying that it was around 1.7 TB. I don't even know if he kept all of them, as his main goal was to produce the most interesting ones to verify certain wellknown studies. I'm pretty sure that Nalimov has personally completed all of the TBs in his format, but hasn't published them all yet. Guy Haworth, who keeps abreast of these things, might know more of the particulars. jm


Date: 12 Sep 2005 03:42:58
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: solve for chess

msadkins04@yahoo.com wrote: >Tictactoe is solved, unlike chess. There is a way >to win, always, provided you make the first move. Then you should have no problem beating me! 1 2 3


Date: 11 Sep 2005 19:57:55
From:
Subject: Re: solve for chess

Guy Macon wrote: > You are wrong. Chess can be solved, given enough computing power and > storage. (The computing power and storage required might be to large > to fit in the universe, but that's another discussion...) > > Here is a simple exercise that may help you to understand > your error: > > Make a simple paperandpencil list that allows perfect play of the > game of tictactoe. You should easily be able to make a "if in > this position make this move" list that results in perfect play. > You will have to make two lists so you can play X or O. <snip > Guy Macon, you are a silly troll. Tictactoe is solved, unlike chess. There is a way to win, always, provided you make the first move. Mark Adkins msadkins04@yahoo.com

 
Date: 12 Sep 2005 14:33:57
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: solve for chess

<msadkins04@yahoo.com > wrote: > Guy Macon, you are a silly troll. You're starting to look very silly yourself, Mark, but I'll be charitable and assume you're not trolling yourself. Somebody once said that one can afford to be obnoxious or wrong but not both at once. > Tictactoe is solved, unlike chess. Correct. It sounds to me like you're trying to say that we can't solve chess because we don't know how to play it perfectly. But `solving chess' means exactly the same thing as `knowing how to play chess perfectly'! (Unless we mean ultraweakly solving chess, but the whole point of ultra weak solution is that you don't need to know how to play perfectly.) > There is a way to win, always, provided you make the first move. No, both players can force a draw after any initial move, though it is possible to make a losing second move. Dave.  David Richerby Carnivorous Whisky (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ singlemalt whisky but it eats flesh!


Date: 11 Sep 2005 19:55:47
From:
Subject: Re: solve for chess

JVMerlino@aol.com wrote: > You're wrong, and it's very simple to prove. > > But, to start with the definition of "best play" that you asked for: >  For any position that can be shown as won by the side to move, it is > the move(s) that result in the shortest mate. Can't you read? I'm not talking about forced mates. What if the position can't be "shown as won"? Most positions in chess are open to win, loss, or draw, and many others are open to two of these: the result in such cases depends upon the subsequent sequence of moves, not upon the current position, and that sequence is unknowable since it requires knowledge not only of your own plans but also of how the other player will move. Even in a position permitting forced mate, while it is true that any move leading to mate is good, there may be more than one move sequence which results in mate in a minimum number of moves. Which is the "best" and why? > Additionally, I never said that "solving chess" meant "finding a move > that wins". Your clarification in your followup post seems to imply > that this is something that I stated. But it is not true. I'm only > talking about finding "best play" from the starting position  not a > WIN from the starting position. And you have yet to meaningfully define this even for forced mate positions, much less for arbitrary positions! To say that chess is "solved", incidentally, means that there is an algorithm for winning from the starting position. There is not, for either side. Mark Adkins msadkins04@yahoo.com

 
Date: 12 Sep 2005 14:12:13
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: solve for chess

<msadkins04@yahoo.com > wrote: >JVMerlino@aol.com wrote: >> You're wrong, and it's very simple to prove. >> >> But, to start with the definition of "best play" that you asked for: >>  For any position that can be shown as won by the side to move, it is >> the move(s) that result in the shortest mate. > > Can't you read? I'm not talking about forced mates. What if the > position can't be "shown as won"? Chess is a finite twoplayer game of perfect information. It follows that every position is either a forced win for White, a forced win for Black or is a draw with best play. > Most positions in chess are open to win, loss, or draw, and many others > are open to two of these: the result in such cases depends upon the > subsequent sequence of moves, not upon the current position, and that > sequence is unknowable since it requires knowledge not only of your own > plans but also of how the other player will move. But there are only finitely many such plans and sequences of moves so one could, in principle, check each one of them and find the best. > Even in a position permitting forced mate, while it is true that any > move leading to mate is good, there may be more than one move sequence > which results in mate in a minimum number of moves. Which is the > "best" and why? There is no requirement for a unique best move. If you had to choose between them, you could always use some arbitrary criterion such as the one with the alphabetically first notation. > To say that chess is "solved", incidentally, means that there is an > algorithm for winning from the starting position. It means no such thing! There are several definitions of `solved'. A game is `ultraweakly solved' if we know the theoretical result from the initial position (e.g., `chess is a win for White'), is `weakly solved' if we know how to achieve the theoretical result from the initial position and is `strongly solved' if we know how to achieve the theoretical result from every legal position. When people talk about `solving chess', they usually mean one of the last two. Dave.  David Richerby Devil Watch (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ precision chronometer that's possessed by Satan!

  
Date: 17 Sep 2005 19:54:17
From: Simon Krahnke
Subject: Re: solve for chess

* <msadkins04@yahoo.com > (03:50) schrieb: > I am still waiting to see proof that chess is "solvable". Well here it is: Do an standard AlphaBeta search on the initial position with unbounded depth and without any forward pruning. Since in this configuration all values will be mate or draw, the final result must also be mate or draw. That will answer the question if it's a forced mate for white or black or forced draw, and give an optimal move for white on the initial position. For a more complete solution just repeat the algorithm on other positions. > Most of the participants in this thread who maintain that it is keep > throwing out terms like "optimum move" even when I have clearly shown > that in the general case, any partial game sequence is repeated in > numerous total game sequences having different game outcomes. Too bad you already confessed you know what »forced mate« means. Any of the prefinal optimal moves in a forced mate tree do only force a mate if I carry on doing only optimal moves. mfg, simon .... l

  
Date: 18 Sep 2005 12:25:05
From: Simon Krahnke
Subject: Re: solve for chess

* <msadkins04@yahoo.com > (02:30) schrieb: > Simon Krahnke wrote: >> * <msadkins04@yahoo.com> (03:50) schrieb: >> >> > I am still waiting to see proof that chess is "solvable". >> >> Well here it is: Do an standard AlphaBeta search on the initial >> position with unbounded depth and without any forward pruning. >> >> Since in this configuration all values will be mate or draw, the final >> result must also be mate or draw. >> >> That will answer the question if it's a forced mate for white or black >> or forced draw, and give an optimal move for white on the initial >> position. >> >> For a more complete solution just repeat the algorithm on other positions. > > Sorry, but this strikes me as the most awful obfuscatory gobbledygook. That is: You understand a word, or what? > You haven't at all proven that one side or the other can, by his first > move, guarantee one of these outcomes regardless of the moves of the > other side. Sure I haven't. You got to read the game theory stuff yourself. > So far as I can see, you've merely stated (quite > inaccurately) that any game of chess must either result in a win by one > side OR the other, or in a draw. Well, so what? Well, look above. It's all a conclusion from this simple fact. I know games that can just go on forever, no matter how hard I try to win or lose. But chess is finite given optimal play. mfg, simon .... l

  
Date: 18 Sep 2005 09:29:48
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: solve for chess

Simon Krahnke wrote: > >* <msadkins04@yahoo.com> (03:50) schrieb: > >> I am still waiting to see proof that chess is "solvable". > >Well here it is: Do an standard AlphaBeta search on the initial >position with unbounded depth and without any forward pruning. > >Since in this configuration all values will be mate or draw, the final >result must also be mate or draw. > >That will answer the question if it's a forced mate for white or black >or forced draw, and give an optimal move for white on the initial >position. > >For a more complete solution just repeat the algorithm on other positions. That is one of the most brilliant bits of technical writing that I have seen in quite a long time. Clear, concise, and quite simple. To bad that the reply that you will get from the msadkins04@yahoo.com will consist of namecalling, with no attempt to understand what you just wrote.


Date: 12 Sep 2005 02:19:38
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: solve for chess

msadkins04@yahoo.com wrote: >It isn't possible, for two reasons: first, because there is no >meaningful definition of "best play" for *every* position; and second, >because even deciding what a "good" move is, in any provable sense, >requires full advance knowledge of the response of one's opponent under >every possible variation from that position onward; this is not >forthcoming from human players, and even chess engines may employ >partial move randomization. You are wrong. Chess can be solved, given enough computing power and storage. (The computing power and storage required might be to large to fit in the universe, but that's another discussion...) Here is a simple exercise that may help you to understand your error: Make a simple paperandpencil list that allows perfect play of the game of tictactoe. You should easily be able to make a "if in this position make this move" list that results in perfect play. You will have to make two lists so you can play X or O. Note that there is indeed a meaningful definition of "best play" for every possible tictactoe position. Note that you do *not* need "full advance knowledge of the response of one's opponent under every possible variation from that position onward." All you need to know is the present position of the tictactoe board and what move to make in that position. Note that it doesn't matter whether your opponent makes random moves, and it doesn't even matter whether he has his own list that allows him to play perfectly. You aren't considering any of his future moves. You are just looking up the current position on the list and making the move it tells you to make. Note that it doesn't even take any brains to generate your list. It can be generated by a stupid bruteforce program with ease. This being Usenet, There is at least a 90% chance that you will either withdraw without further comment or defend your position. If you choose to defend it, please explain the difference between tictactoe and chess other than the size and complexity of the move tree being much larger in chess. Also, please consider the fact that there exists a list such as I described above for every possible chess position having six or fewer men on the board. Please explain why someone with enough computing power and storage couldn't do the same for seven or eight man positions. Then explain why someone with enough computing power and storage couldn't do the same for one particular thirtytwo man position.  Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >


Date: 11 Sep 2005 16:51:38
From:
Subject: Re: solve for chess

msadkins04@yahoo.com wrote: > JVMerlino@aol.com wrote: > > Of course, strictly speaking chess can be solved. It is a finite game, > > with a specific starting point and a limited set of moves that can be > > made from any position. Therefore, it is POSSIBLE to determine best > > play for any position by analyzing the tree of all possible moves for > > that position all the way out to their gameending state, exactly like > > endgame databases do now. > > It isn't possible, for two reasons: first, because there is no > meaningful definition of "best play" for *every* position; and second, > because even deciding what a "good" move is, in any provable sense, > requires full advance knowledge of the response of one's opponent under > every possible variation from that position onward; this is not > forthcoming from human players, and even chess engines may employ > partial move randomization. A move in chess is frequently only > potentially good or bad, depending upon the subsequent sequence, and > some moves that are bad in the short term may end up being good, or > even decisive, in the long term, in ways that are unpredictable at the > time they are made (because the subsequent move sequence is unknown and > unknowable). Even the blunder of a piece may result in the > repositioning of other pieces in a way that permits the blunderer to > force mate in some future position, i.e., a blunder may inadvertently > place the right piece in the right place at what (in a future position) > will be the right time; this is equivalent to a very long range > combination, except that it is inadvertent. > > Let the position to be analyzed be the opening of the game from the > starting position, before White moves. There is no "best play" for > White. What criterion does one use for "best"? To achieve checkmate > in the shortest number of moves? The shortest mate possible is not a > static figure because subsequent moves alter the position and thus the > figure, and it is not generally possible ahead of time to know which > moves will be made by one's opponent; therefore nothing can be proven > except provisionally, and the conditions upon which this provisional > proof are predicated may change with subsequent moves. Furthermore, > there are many ways to checkmate in, say, 20 moves. Which of them is > "best"? Even in the case where a forced mate exists from a given > position, more than one forced mate of the same (shortest) number of > moves may be possible from that position. Furthermore, not every > position is guaranteed to result in a forced mate, and there may also > be many ways to draw in cases where it is possible to force a draw  > not to mention many ways to lose in cases where it is possible to lose! > > For all of these reasons, it is not possible to "solve" chess. > > Mark Adkins > msadkins04@yahoo.com You're wrong, and it's very simple to prove. But, to start with the definition of "best play" that you asked for:  For any position that can be shown as won by the side to move, it is the move(s) that result in the shortest mate.  For any position that is drawn, it is any move that does not turn the position into a lost game.  For any position that can as lost by the side to move, it is the move(s) that result in forcing the opponent to take the longest path to mate. This is exactly how DTM endgame databases define it, and they work very well for that purpose. But your argument about requiring "full advance knowledge of the response of one's opponent" is completely beside the point. If you have a won position, it doesn't matter what your opponent plays as long as you still have a won position after your move. The same is true for a drawn position. You also say that "a move in chess is frequently only potentially good or bad, depending upon the subsequent sequence", but if there are 6 pieces left on the board, and I have all 6man EGDB files, there is no "potential" about it  the move is not only either "good or bad", but is actually "best play or not best play". The entire set of legal moves for every position involving 6 men HAS been determined to be either "best play or not best play". Additionally, I never said that "solving chess" meant "finding a move that wins". Your clarification in your followup post seems to imply that this is something that I stated. But it is not true. I'm only talking about finding "best play" from the starting position  not a WIN from the starting position. So, if it has been already done for 6 pieces, why not 7, or 8, or 16 or 32? The exact same mechanism that has SOLVED chess for 6 pieces can solve it for a larger number of pieces. And once it is done for all 32 pieces, (and it "only" needs to be solved from the starting position), chess will be solved. Whether the final result of chess is that it is drawn or won for White remains to be seen. jm p.s. And, yes, I'm aware of all the technical issues involving computing and storing the necessary data to get to this solution. That's not part of this discussion. In a mathematical sense, but not necessarily in a practical sense, chess can be solved.


Date: 11 Sep 2005 14:53:33
From:
Subject: Re: solve for chess

P.S. To further clarify what I have written below: It is not even theoretically possible to solve chess, no matter what the computing power involved. Until a position is reached where a forced mate is guaranteed, there is no move sequence proven to win; and because such positions are always in advance of the starting position, a computer will never be able to determine whether it (or its opponent) can force mate until *after* some unknown (and unknowable) future move of its opponent places the board in such a position. msadkins04@yahoo.com wrote: > JVMerlino@aol.com wrote: > > Of course, strictly speaking chess can be solved. It is a finite game, > > with a specific starting point and a limited set of moves that can be > > made from any position. Therefore, it is POSSIBLE to determine best > > play for any position by analyzing the tree of all possible moves for > > that position all the way out to their gameending state, exactly like > > endgame databases do now. > > It isn't possible, for two reasons: first, because there is no > meaningful definition of "best play" for *every* position; and second, > because even deciding what a "good" move is, in any provable sense, > requires full advance knowledge of the response of one's opponent under > every possible variation from that position onward; this is not > forthcoming from human players, and even chess engines may employ > partial move randomization. A move in chess is frequently only > potentially good or bad, depending upon the subsequent sequence, and > some moves that are bad in the short term may end up being good, or > even decisive, in the long term, in ways that are unpredictable at the > time they are made (because the subsequent move sequence is unknown and > unknowable). Even the blunder of a piece may result in the > repositioning of other pieces in a way that permits the blunderer to > force mate in some future position, i.e., a blunder may inadvertently > place the right piece in the right place at what (in a future position) > will be the right time; this is equivalent to a very long range > combination, except that it is inadvertent. > > Let the position to be analyzed be the opening of the game from the > starting position, before White moves. There is no "best play" for > White. What criterion does one use for "best"? To achieve checkmate > in the shortest number of moves? The shortest mate possible is not a > static figure because subsequent moves alter the position and thus the > figure, and it is not generally possible ahead of time to know which > moves will be made by one's opponent; therefore nothing can be proven > except provisionally, and the conditions upon which this provisional > proof are predicated may change with subsequent moves. Furthermore, > there are many ways to checkmate in, say, 20 moves. Which of them is > "best"? Even in the case where a forced mate exists from a given > position, more than one forced mate of the same (shortest) number of > moves may be possible from that position. Furthermore, not every > position is guaranteed to result in a forced mate, and there may also > be many ways to draw in cases where it is possible to force a draw  > not to mention many ways to lose in cases where it is possible to lose! > > For all of these reasons, it is not possible to "solve" chess. > > Mark Adkins > msadkins04@yahoo.com


Date: 11 Sep 2005 14:32:26
From:
Subject: Re: solve for chess

JVMerlino@aol.com wrote: > Of course, strictly speaking chess can be solved. It is a finite game, > with a specific starting point and a limited set of moves that can be > made from any position. Therefore, it is POSSIBLE to determine best > play for any position by analyzing the tree of all possible moves for > that position all the way out to their gameending state, exactly like > endgame databases do now. It isn't possible, for two reasons: first, because there is no meaningful definition of "best play" for *every* position; and second, because even deciding what a "good" move is, in any provable sense, requires full advance knowledge of the response of one's opponent under every possible variation from that position onward; this is not forthcoming from human players, and even chess engines may employ partial move randomization. A move in chess is frequently only potentially good or bad, depending upon the subsequent sequence, and some moves that are bad in the short term may end up being good, or even decisive, in the long term, in ways that are unpredictable at the time they are made (because the subsequent move sequence is unknown and unknowable). Even the blunder of a piece may result in the repositioning of other pieces in a way that permits the blunderer to force mate in some future position, i.e., a blunder may inadvertently place the right piece in the right place at what (in a future position) will be the right time; this is equivalent to a very long range combination, except that it is inadvertent. Let the position to be analyzed be the opening of the game from the starting position, before White moves. There is no "best play" for White. What criterion does one use for "best"? To achieve checkmate in the shortest number of moves? The shortest mate possible is not a static figure because subsequent moves alter the position and thus the figure, and it is not generally possible ahead of time to know which moves will be made by one's opponent; therefore nothing can be proven except provisionally, and the conditions upon which this provisional proof are predicated may change with subsequent moves. Furthermore, there are many ways to checkmate in, say, 20 moves. Which of them is "best"? Even in the case where a forced mate exists from a given position, more than one forced mate of the same (shortest) number of moves may be possible from that position. Furthermore, not every position is guaranteed to result in a forced mate, and there may also be many ways to draw in cases where it is possible to force a draw  not to mention many ways to lose in cases where it is possible to lose! For all of these reasons, it is not possible to "solve" chess. Mark Adkins msadkins04@yahoo.com


Date: 12 Sep 2005 04:10:29
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: solve for chess

msadkins04@yahoo.com wrote: > >Guy Macon wrote: > >> You are wrong. Chess can be solved, given enough computing power and >> storage. (The computing power and storage required might be to large >> to fit in the universe, but that's another discussion...) > ><snip> > >Guy Macon, you are a silly troll. "When anyone resorts to personal attacks, it is almost always because they are losing an argument." The Happy Heretic >Tictactoe is solved, unlike chess. There is a way to win, always, >provided you make the first move. I suggest that, having gotten the *WRONG* answer for tictactoe ("There is a way to win, always, provided you make the first move" is wrong, wrong. wrong!), that you abandon all attempts to figure out chess. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tictactoe I note that you were unable to answer the simple question I asked. Evasion noted. Here is that question that you cannot answer again: There exists a "if in this position make this move" list that allows perfect play for every possible chess position having six or fewer men on the board. Again I ask you to please explain why someone with enough computing power and storage couldn't do the same for all seven or eight man positions. Again I ask you to then explain why someone with enough computing power and storage couldn't do the same for one particular thirtytwo man position. If you refuse to answer again, I will take that as an admission that you cannot answer the question and as an admission that you are wrong. Now, are you going to address the question I just asked (for the second time) in a calm, rational manner, or are you going to engage in silly name calling? My killfile is awaiting your answer. After you fail to beat me a tictactoe, of course. I predict that you will resign.  Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >


Date: 12 Sep 2005 22:26:02
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: solve for chess

msadkins04@yahoo.com wrote: > >David Richerby wrote: >> Chess is a finite twoplayer game of perfect information. It follows that >> every position is either a forced win for White, a forced win for Black or >> is a draw with best play. > >It isn't a game of perfect information. Learn what "a game of perfect information" is and then we can talk.


Date: 12 Sep 2005 12:20:09
From:
Subject: Re: solve for chess

> It isn't even a finite game. Ok, you're clearly delusional, extremely bad at math, or (most likely) just a troll. To say that chess is not a finite game is so laughably and fundamentally wrong means that there is absolutely no point in arguing with you any more. *plonk* jm


Date: 12 Sep 2005 18:39:18
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: solve for chess

msadkins04@yahoo.com wrote: >I have never been a TicTacToe afficionado, but I do recall, with >reasonable certainty, reading and (and discussing with others) a way to >win at the game provided one moves first. Now, all evidence of such an >algorithm seems to have vanished. This does not surprise me very much, >considering the fact that this is a pseudoreality which seems to >undergo a variety of fundamental "editing" so that (for example) events >which occurred in the past vanish from record; also, I am used to >dealing with pseudosentients like yourself, who lie compulsively and >habitually, from a pathological contrarianism. My recollections of the >TicTacToe algorithm are from school days, many decades ago, and it >might, possibly, have been erroneous: I do not recall exhaustively >analyzing it, but it made sense to me at the time; now, however, there >seems to be no recoverable record of it  the closest thing being the >assertion of a winning algorithm for 3D TicTacToe. I routinely see >advertisements for "new release" movies which I KNOW, with absolute >rather than merely reasonable certainty, have been out before, years >ago, though all archival evidence of this disappears by the time the >events reoccur. The same is true for many newspaper stories, magazine >covers, and obituaries. As for TicTacToe, I really don't care enough >to try to reconstruct what was once widely published as a winning >method. Perhaps it never was what it claimed to be: but something >claiming to be this certainly held nearly universal circulation. So you refuse to admit that there is no winning method for tictactoe, and you prefer to believe that somehow archival evidence of something as wellpublicized as a movie release disappears than to believe the obvious  that you are delusional. Alas, you aren't one of those nice delusional people who are charming and fiendly, but are instead one of those nasty delusional people who engage in unprovoked personal attacks on anyone who questions your version of "reality." Here are some definitions that you should be aware of:  Kook [Usenet; originally and more formally, `net.kook'] Term used to describe a regular poster who continually posts messages with no apparent grounding in reality. Different from a troll, which implies a sort of sly wink on the part of a poster who knows better, kooks really believe what they write, to the extent that they believe anything. The kook trademark is paranoia and grandiosity. Kooks will often build up elaborate imaginary support structures, fake corporations and the like, and continue to act as if those things are real even after their falsity has been documented in public. While they may appear harmless, and are usually filtered out by the other regular participants in a newsgroup of mailing list, they can still cause problems because the necessity for these measures is not immediately apparent to newcomers; there are several instances on record, for example, of journalists writing stories with quotes from kooks who caught them unaware. See also Troll  Troll 1. v.,n. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The wellconstructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. n. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand  they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. The use of `troll' in either sense is a live metaphor that readily produces elaborations and combining forms. For example, one not infrequently sees the warning "Do not feed the troll" as part of a followup to troll postings. See also Kook.  Killfile [Usenet; very common] (alt. `KILL file') Peruser file(s) used by some Usenet reading programs (originally Larry Wall's rn(1)) to discard summarily (without presenting for reading) articles matching some particularly uninteresting (or unwanted) patterns of subject, author, or other header lines. Thus to add a person (or subject) to one's kill file is to arrange for that person to be ignored by one's newsreader in future. By extension, it may be used for a decision to ignore the person or subject in other media. See also plonk.  Plonk [Usenet: possibly influenced by British slang `plonk' for cheap booze, or `plonker' for someone behaving stupidly (latter is lit. equivalent to Yiddish `schmuck')] The sound a newbie makes as he falls to the bottom of a kill file. While it originated in the newsgroup talk.bizarre, this term (usually written "*plonk*") is now (1994) widespread on Usenet. See also killfile. 


Date: 12 Sep 2005 18:07:04
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: solve for chess

msadkins04@yahoo.com wrote: >It isn't. Take a look at the very first position, the starting >position. Is that a forced mate for White, a forced mate for Black, or >a forced draw? (Answer, none of the above.) CORRECT answer: *one* of the above (we don't know which one, but we know for sure that it is one of those three.) I am still waiting for your tictactoe move... Do you resign?


Date: 12 Sep 2005 11:01:59
From:
Subject: Re: solve for chess

David Richerby wrote: > <msadkins04@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Tictactoe is solved, unlike chess. > > Correct. It sounds to me like you're trying to say that we can't solve > chess because we don't know how to play it perfectly. But `solving chess' > means exactly the same thing as `knowing how to play chess perfectly'! You're presuming, in defiance of logic, that there IS such a thing as "perfect chess play". I've tried to demonstrate that it is precisely the theoretical absence of such play which renders chess unsolvable. > > > There is a way to win [TicTacToe], always, provided you make the first > > move. > > No, both players can force a draw after any initial move, though it is > possible to make a losing second move. > I have never been a TicTacToe afficionado, but I do recall, with reasonable certainty, reading and (and discussing with others) a way to win at the game provided one moves first. Now, all evidence of such an algorithm seems to have vanished. This does not surprise me very much, considering the fact that this is a pseudoreality which seems to undergo a variety of fundamental "editing" so that (for example) events which occurred in the past vanish from record; also, I am used to dealing with pseudosentients like yourself, who lie compulsively and habitually, from a pathological contrarianism. My recollections of the TicTacToe algorithm are from school days, many decades ago, and it might, possibly, have been erroneous: I do not recall exhaustively analyzing it, but it made sense to me at the time; now, however, there seems to be no recoverable record of it  the closest thing being the assertion of a winning algorithm for 3D TicTacToe. I routinely see advertisements for "new release" movies which I KNOW, with absolute rather than merely reasonable certainty, have been out before, years ago, though all archival evidence of this disappears by the time the events reoccur. The same is true for many newspaper stories, magazine covers, and obituaries. As for TicTacToe, I really don't care enough to try to reconstruct what was once widely published as a winning method. Perhaps it never was what it claimed to be: but something claiming to be this certainly held nearly universal circulation. Mark Adkins msadkins04@yahoo.com


Date: 12 Sep 2005 10:29:31
From:
Subject: Re: solve for chess

David Richerby wrote: > Chess is a finite twoplayer game of perfect information. It follows that > every position is either a forced win for White, a forced win for Black or > is a draw with best play. It isn't a game of perfect information. A game of perfect information is one where, at every move, the current game position contains all data necessary to determine game outcome. That isn't true for chess: take a look at the starting position. What is additionally necessary, from that position, and from most subsequent positions, is the future move sequence; and that is unknown and unknowable when playing an opponent whose moves in every possible position aren't known or knowable in advance. It isn't even a finite game. It doesn't follow, from the basic rules of chess and from the fact that there are a finite number of theoretically possible arrangements of pieces on the board, that the number of moves in the game must be finite. That requires the imposition of additional rules (e.g., ending a game automatically if a position is repeated (not merely consecutively repeated) a finite number of times. > > > > Most positions in chess are open to win, loss, or draw, and many others > > are open to two of these: the result in such cases depends upon the > > subsequent sequence of moves, not upon the current position, and that > > sequence is unknowable since it requires knowledge not only of your own > > plans but also of how the other player will move. > > But there are only finitely many such plans and sequences of moves so one > could, in principle, check each one of them and find the best. No, because there is no "best" move, in every position, independent of all possible future moves (including those of one's opponent); there are in most cases moves that are only provisionally good or bad, conditional upon the future move sequence. Since that has yet to occur, the data is not available. This is *imperfect* or incomplete knowledge. > > > > Even in a position permitting forced mate, while it is true that any > > move leading to mate is good, there may be more than one move sequence > > which results in mate in a minimum number of moves. Which is the > > "best" and why? > > There is no requirement for a unique best move. If you had to choose > between them, you could always use some arbitrary criterion such as the > one with the alphabetically first notation. OF COURSE there is such a requirement, because the word "best" requires it, semantically! In some position where it can be demonstrated that 15 forced mates exist, each requiring the same provably minimum number of moves, there is NO "best move": there are 15 winning moves. They are all equally good, at least on the basis of length. > > > > To say that chess is "solved", incidentally, means that there is an > > algorithm for winning from the starting position. > > It means no such thing! Yes it does. > There are several definitions of `solved'. A > game is `ultraweakly solved' if we know the theoretical result from the > initial position (e.g., `chess is a win for White'), is `weakly solved' if > we know how to achieve the theoretical result from the initial position > and is `strongly solved' if we know how to achieve the theoretical result > from every legal position. When people talk about `solving chess', they > usually mean one of the last two. The term used was "solved" (without weakening qualifier). Note that "knowing how to achieve the theoretical result from every legal position" implies knowing how to achieve it from the starting position. That is, solving chess means discovering an algorithm for reaching the theoretical result from the starting position. Now, what is "the theoretical solution" where the game of chess is concerned? The theoretical problem isn't how to lose, or how to tie: the theoretical problem is how to win. The theoretical solution to the game of chess is therefore an algorithm guaranteeing a win from the starting position. THAT is what is usually meant by "to solve chess". Mark Adkins msadkins04@yahoo.com

 
Date: 13 Sep 2005 11:56:45
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: solve for chess

msadkins04@yahoo.com wrote: > David Richerby wrote: >> Chess is a finite twoplayer game of perfect information. It follows >> that every position is either a forced win for White, a forced win for >> Black or is a draw with best play. > > It isn't a game of perfect information. A game of perfect information > is one where, at every move, the current game position contains all > data necessary to determine game outcome. That isn't true for chess: It's absolutely true for chess. It's just that we don't know how to determine the game outcome from most positions. > take a look at the starting position. What is additionally necessary, > from that position, and from most subsequent positions, is the future > move sequence; and that is unknown and unknowable when playing an > opponent whose moves in every possible position aren't known or > knowable in advance. A good move is good against any reply. > It isn't even a finite game. It doesn't follow, from the basic rules > of chess and from the fact that there are a finite number of > theoretically possible arrangements of pieces on the board, that the > number of moves in the game must be finite. That requires the > imposition of additional rules (e.g., ending a game automatically if a > position is repeated (not merely consecutively repeated) a finite > number of times. You're right that the game doesn't end automatically by either the fifty move rule or threefold repetition. However, we're assuming that the players make optimal moves and, if one player has a way to win the game, making a move that allows the opponent to claim a draw cannot be optimal. Likewise, not claiming that draw cannot be optimal. So we may assume that the game terminates as soon as a draw claim could be made. >> But there are only finitely many such plans and sequences of moves so >> one could, in principle, check each one of them and find the best. > > No, because there is no "best" move, in every position, independent of > all possible future moves (including those of one's opponent); there > are in most cases moves that are only provisionally good or bad, > conditional upon the future move sequence. No. The quality of a move does not depend on what reply is played. If I play a move which allows you to checkmate me in one, it's still a bad move, even if you don't spot it. If you don't spot it, you've played a bad move, too. > Since that has yet to occur, the data is not available. This is > *imperfect* or incomplete knowledge. That's not what imperfect information means. In principle, knowing just the position, I could mull over all your possible plans so I could work out all the relevant information. In contrast, if we're playing some sort of card game, I cannot possibly work out what cards you have in your hand (in most circumstances) so I do not have perfect information. >> There is no requirement for a unique best move. If you had to choose >> between them, you could always use some arbitrary criterion such as the >> one with the alphabetically first notation. > > OF COURSE there is such a requirement, because the word "best" requires > it, semantically! In some position where it can be demonstrated that > 15 forced mates exist, each requiring the same provably minimum number > of moves, there is NO "best move": there are 15 winning moves. They > are all equally good, at least on the basis of length. You are obviously unfamiliar with the mathematical use of words such as `best' or `optimal'. A move is best if there is no move that is strictly better than it. This means that there might be more than one best move in this sense. This differs slightly from general usage but it's hardly very important, is it? After all, I've explained how to generate a single best move. >>> To say that chess is "solved", incidentally, means that there is an >>> algorithm for winning from the starting position. >> >> It means no such thing! > > Yes it does. Oh no it doesn't! Trust me: I'm a dor. >> There are several definitions of `solved'. A game is `ultraweakly >> solved' if we know the theoretical result from the initial position >> (e.g., `chess is a win for White'), is `weakly solved' if we know how >> to achieve the theoretical result from the initial position and is >> `strongly solved' if we know how to achieve the theoretical result >> from every legal position. When people talk about `solving chess', >> they usually mean one of the last two. > > The term used was "solved" (without weakening qualifier). The term `solved' is rather informal  I was trying to add a little precision to the discussion. > Note that "knowing how to achieve the theoretical result from every > legal position" implies knowing how to achieve it from the starting > position. Note that I'm not stupid and had worked that out myself. Perhaps that's why the term `strongly solved' has a name that makes it sound better than `weakly solved'? > That is, solving chess means discovering an algorithm for reaching the > theoretical result from the starting position. Now, what is "the > theoretical solution" where the game of chess is concerned? The > theoretical problem isn't how to lose, or how to tie: the theoretical > problem is how to win. What if that's not possible? > The theoretical solution to the game of chess is therefore an algorithm > guaranteeing a win from the starting position. THAT is what is usually > meant by "to solve chess". It might be what you understand by the term... Dave.  David Richerby Mentholated Cat (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ cuddly pet but it's invigorating!

 
Date: 15 Sep 2005 01:22:45
From:
Subject: Re: solve for chess

msadkins04@yahoo.com wrote: > take a look at the starting position. What is additionally necessary, > from that position, and from most subsequent positions, is the future > move sequence; and that is unknown and unknowable well that doesn't matter (that the move sequence is unknown). At the starting point opening theory rules. let's say that if you start with 1.d4, then your opponent can either follow theory, e.g. aiming for Kings Indian, with a position with d6/Nf6/Bg7, or deviate from theory, in which case he/black probably will end up with an inferior position. Conversely, if white will deviate from theory, black might get better chances, if he/computer/alien/ zombie/GM or whatever would be a good player. Now interestingly enough, i believe that if both sides follow main line theory, they end with a draw. With 1.e4 white imho has slightly better chances, but fundamentally black can still defend well enough to keep a drawish position, resulting in a drawish endgame, e.g. as indicated by egtb's. Ergo, chess is solved, and it is a draw. So.. i propose to change the rules of chess, abolish the 50 move endgame rule, and then white might still have a slight chance to win. And.. it will keep us busy for some 200 yrs more :) best regards http://superchess.com

  
Date: 15 Sep 2005 09:09:07
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: solve for chess

superchess@wanadoo.nl wrote: > let's say that if you start with 1.d4, then your opponent can either > follow theory, e.g. aiming for Kings Indian, with a position with > d6/Nf6/Bg7, or deviate from theory, in which case he/black probably will > end up with an inferior position. > > Conversely, if white will deviate from theory, black might get better > chances, if he/computer/alien/zombie/GM or whatever would be a good > player. > > Now interestingly enough, i believe that if both sides follow main line > theory, they end with a draw. That's not so interesting. It's probably fair to say that most people think this. > With 1.e4 white imho has slightly better chances, but fundamentally > black can still defend well enough to keep a drawish position, resulting > in a drawish endgame, e.g. as indicated by egtb's. > > Ergo, chess is solved, and it is a draw. Er... no. Waving one's hands and saying that Black can probably hold a draw after following current opening theory in no way counts as `solving chess'. > So.. i propose to change the rules of chess, abolish the 50 move endgame > rule, and then white might still have a slight chance to win. Makes no difference. The 50 move rule was extended from, as I recall, 1984 to 1992. Almost no games got into positions where the extended rule applied so it reverted to 50 moves in all positions. Also, I defy any human being to play out these 200move forced mates. The first 150 moves look completely random. Dave.  David Richerby Flammable Dish (TM): it's like www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a fine ceramic dish but it burns really easily!

   
Date: 15 Sep 2005 18:19:01
From:
Subject: Re: solve for chess

David Richerby wrote: >>Ergo, chess is solved, and it is a draw. > > Er... no. ok, there's no proof for this, that's true. there's also no proof that if you flip a coin ten billion times, that the number of heads or tails will be between 49 and 51 %. But statistically speaking, the more often you flip a coin, the more nearby the percentage will go to 50 %. The more perfectly chess players, or computers are playing, the more likely it becomes the game ends in a draw. >>So.. i propose to change the rules of chess, abolish the 50 move endgame >>rule, and then white might still have a slight chance to win. > Makes no difference. The 50 move rule was extended from, as I recall, > 1984 to 1992. ok, interesting info, but then we didn't have such good/large computerized endgame tables as nowdays, you know. > Also, I defy any > human being to play out these 200move forced mates. well a computer program can easily do it. whether it would make a difference for the drawing chances of the game, i don't know. my statement was a bit joking (after all it would be just another chess variant, and not official chess), and indeed a speculative statement ok, if we would like white to win, let's think about one other chess variant, where stalemate would mean a full point (i.e. a win) for white. This obviously would increase white's chances. Could such a variant be 'solved' (in the sense that it would be always a win for white) ? And if 1.e4 would be the best move in such a variant, would that mean that 1.e4 would also be the best move in 'normal/official' (Fide) chess ? My answer is yes, But you of course would disagree again :)

    
Date: 18 Sep 2005 14:27:38
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: solve for chess

superchess@wanadoo.nl wrote: > David Richerby wrote: >> superchess@wanadoo.nl wrote: >>> Ergo, chess is solved, and it is a draw. >> >> Er... no. > > ok, there's no proof for this, that's true. And to say that chess is solved means that there is a proof. > there's also no proof that if you flip a coin ten billion times, that > the number of heads or tails will be between 49 and 51 %. That's an entirely different scenario. Tossing a coin ten billion times is an experiment and, for every n in the range 010^10, there is a nonzero probability that you'll get n heads. Chess is either a win for White, a win for Black or a draw. We don't know which and no amount of experimentation will demonstrate it because the only way to prove that a position is a forced win for one side is to investigate every possible sequence of moves from the losing side. > The more perfectly chess players, or computers are playing, the more > likely it becomes the game ends in a draw. So you (and many other people, myself probably included) believe. But until there's a proof, chess isn't solved. >>> So.. i propose to change the rules of chess, abolish the 50 move >>> endgame rule, and then white might still have a slight chance to win. >> >> Makes no difference. The 50 move rule was extended from, as I recall, >> 1984 to 1992. > > ok, interesting info, but then we didn't have such good/large > computerized endgame tables as nowdays, you know. The rule was changed precisely because computer analysis indicated that there were forced wins that would be chopped off because of the 50 move rule. Tablebases without pawns aren't all that hard, as I recall. > ok, if we would like white to win, let's think about one other chess > variant, where stalemate would mean a full point (i.e. a win) for > white. This obviously would increase white's chances. Could such a > variant be 'solved' (in the sense that it would be always a win for > white) ? That's not what solved means! Solved means that we know the outcome (and possibly how to get there). Chess with stalemate being a win for White (let's call it stalematechess) would be no easier to solve than ordinary chess, though it would be more likely to be a win for White for the simple reason that a nonzero proportion of chess games end in stalemates. But why do we want to make the game easier for White to win by adding artificial rulechanges? (Surely, if you think stalemate shouldn't be a draw, it should be a loss for the side whose king is stuck?) > And if 1.e4 would be the best move in such a variant, would that mean > that 1.e4 would also be the best move in 'normal/official' (Fide) chess? > My answer is yes, But you of course would disagree again If 1.e4 forces a win in stalematechess, it forces at least a draw in ordinary chess. On the other hand, it's possible that there is another move that forces a win in ordinary chess, such as 1.d4. Dave.  David Richerby Unholy Cat (TM): it's like a cuddly www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ pet but it's also a crime against nature!


Date: 12 Sep 2005 09:38:08
From:
Subject: Re: solve for chess

Simon Krahnke wrote: > * <msadkins04@yahoo.com> (04:55) schrieb: > > What if the position can't be "shown as won"? Most positions in chess > > are open to win, loss, or draw, and many others are open to two of > > these: > > No there aren't. Every position in chess is either a forced win for > white or for black, or a forced draw. It isn't. Take a look at the very first position, the starting position. Is that a forced mate for White, a forced mate for Black, or a forced draw? (Answer, none of the above.) You don't seem to know what "forced mate" or "forced draw" means. It doesn't mean that the game will eventually end in a mate for *someone* or else in a draw. If White has a forced mate, and Black is subject to forced mate, it means that, in the current position, every legal move possible to Black can be followed by a move by White which leads to Black being mated, and that this is true for every position subsequent to this. If, on the other hand, Black is free to choose, in a given position, from moves which do not satisfy these conditions, he is not subject to a forced mate. Never mind "best" moves  it's easy to see that in most chess positions, there are not even provably good moves. There are two kinds of moves in chess commonly called "good": (1) Provably good moves. These include, for example, moves necessary to execute a forced mate. (2) Heuristically good moves. These are based on heuristic, or rule of thumb evaluations which use *relatively short term* algorithms weighing gains in material and/or position. By "relatively short term" I mean evaluations which end with some future position which is not endofgame. Heuristically good moves are not always objectively good moves, because even when they are exhaustive with respect to their evaluation depth (and most of them aren't), they may lead to inferior positions over movesequences which are deeper than this. That is, they may lead to shortterm gain but longerterm loss, where the latter outweighs the former (e.g., leading to positions where forced mate is possible against one) even though they initially gain material and/or positional advantage and thus look good at the time they are made. Similarly, heuristically bad moves may lead to winning positions over a moveframe longer than their evaluation frame. Most positions in chess are ambiguous in that they permit a win, loss, or draw; in these cases, knowledge of game outcome depends upon the future move sequence and is not strictly inherent to the current position; and half of the future movesequence is determined by your opponent. Thus, the data necessary to evaluate the position in any provable manner is missing; it is unknown and unknowable if your opponent is free to choose among alternatives that lead to *different* game outcomes. In most chess positions, therefore, there are no provably good moves, but only heuristically good moves, which may not be objectively good moves. > > > Even in a position permitting forced mate, while it is true that any > > move leading to mate is good, there may be more than one move sequence > > which results in mate in a minimum number of moves. Which is the > > "best" and why? > > Any is. This is silly. No one demands there is a single best move in > every position. Of course there may be many perfect games of chess. But > they all end the same. Evidently you don't know what the word "best" means. To say that there is "more than one best move" in a given position is an abuse of language. If there is a "best" move there is only one; otherwise, there are merely good moves or winning moves. > > > And you have yet to meaningfully define this even for forced mate > > positions, much less for arbitrary positions! To say that chess is > > "solved", incidentally, means that there is an algorithm for winning > > from the starting position. > > No, it doesn't mean that. Certainly it does. This reminds me of that awful troll, Guy Macon, who asserted in another thread that the semantic content of algebraic chess notation is "the game of chess" rather than the moves described by the symbols. > > > There is not, for either side. > > There is none yet, and may never be. But theoretically it is possible. > No, theoretically it is impossible, because the starting position of chess does not provide sufficient data, in and of itself, for such an algorithm; only after the future move sequence has caused the game to reach a point where provably good moves (e.g., a forced mate) exists, is an algorithm possible; and as long as the future move sequence is halfdetermined by the moves of an opponent which are unknown and unknowable in advance, that data is not available. The simple fact is that in most chess positions, a move is good or bad depending in part on how your opponent moves subsequently. A particular move might be good if your opponent then moves one way, and bad if your opponent moves another way; in such cases there are no objectively good moves independent of his future move seqeuence, much less a "best" move independent of this. Mark Adkins msadkins04@yahoo.com


Date: 15 Sep 2005 20:29:07
From:
Subject: Re: solve for chess

David Richerby wrote: > > A good move is good against any reply. And if there is no move that is good against any reply, it being understood that a "reply" may last an arbitrary number of moves? Do you disagree that it is possible for a move to be good against some replies, and not good against others, and that it may be possible in some positions, or even in most of them, that every possible move is ambiguous in this fashion? I'm not talking about ambiguous with respect to the short term, necessarily, but ambiguous with respect to a total game sequence of moves. > msadkins04@yahoo.com wrote: > > > It isn't even a finite game. It doesn't follow, from the basic rules > > of chess and from the fact that there are a finite number of > > theoretically possible arrangements of pieces on the board, that the > > number of moves in the game must be finite. That requires the > > imposition of additional rules (e.g., ending a game automatically if a > > position is repeated (not merely consecutively repeated) a finite > > number of times. > > You're right that the game doesn't end automatically by either the fifty > move rule or threefold repetition. However, we're assuming that the > players make optimal moves and, if one player has a way to win the game, > making a move that allows the opponent to claim a draw cannot be > optimal. Likewise, not claiming that draw cannot be optimal. So we may > assume that the game terminates as soon as a draw claim could be made. OK, this is about the only thing in the latest batch of replies that interests me. I will hopefully have more to say about this subject (solving chess, or not) but in the meantime I would like to know a few things about the current status of these rules. First, they are not basic chess rules, so under what circumstances do they apply? My understanding is that they are supplemental rules of chess. Second, why do you assume that one player always has a way to win the game prior to the intervention (whether automatic or claimed by a player) of an antiperpetual game rule? That is, even assuming that your premise that "chess is a win for White" or "chess is a win for Black" are theoretically possible until it is known otherwise, why does this imply that a guaranteed win for one side must always be possible prior to the intervention of an arbitrary antiperpetual game rule? Why couldn't it be the case, under your thesis, that, for example, White is guaranteed a win from start of game, if he "plays perfectly", but that in some cases this requires more moves than are possible under these antiperpetual game rules? Or perhaps more than are possible under any antiperpetual game rule? Why couldn't it be the case that in the presence of some (any) antiperpetual game rule, is it possible under your thesis for Black, playing perfectly (as a theoretical loser) to stretch a game out until the antiperpetual rule kicks in, even though if the game could go on arbitrarily long White would eventually be guaranteed a win in all circumstances? > > > >> But there are only finitely many such plans and sequences of moves so > >> one could, in principle, check each one of them and find the best. > > > > No, because there is no "best" move, in every position, independent of > > all possible future moves (including those of one's opponent); there > > are in most cases moves that are only provisionally good or bad, > > conditional upon the future move sequence. > > No. The quality of a move does not depend on what reply is played. If I > play a move which allows you to checkmate me in one, it's still a bad > move, even if you don't spot it. If you don't spot it, you've played a > bad move, too. This is specious. I didn't say that there were NO circumstances in which a move is provably good, merely that in most cases there is no provably good move. Incidentally, I'd be interesting in getting your reply to the following. It is scarcely unanswerable (as I phrase it below) but since you seem to be the most informed/coherent/objective of those taking your position in this thread, I'd be interested to see how you reply. At the start of game, each one of the legal moves available to White is known to result in games in which White wins, as well as in games in which Black wins, as well as in games which draw. More generally, for any move sequence (W1B1W2B2...Wn) which results in a win for White, in the general case there are numerous move sequences which, up through the move Bn1 (the next to last move), eventually result in each of these outcomes. That is, at most points in a total game sequence of moves, the partial sequence up through that point is indistinguishable as a win, loss, or draw, since there are sequences of each kind identical through that point. What is the selection criterion for White to play a "perfect game"? > >Trust me: I'm a dor. Har. Physician, heal thyself. Mark Adkins msadkins04@yahoo.com


Date: 16 Sep 2005 04:46:34
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: solve for chess

msadkins04@yahoo.com wrote: >David Richerby wrote: > >> A good move is good against any reply. > >And if there is no move that is good against any reply, it being >understood that a "reply" may last an arbitrary number of moves? Do >you disagree that it is possible for a move to be good against some >replies, and not good against others, and that it may be possible in >some positions, or even in most of them, that every possible move is >ambiguous in this fashion? I'm not talking about ambiguous with >respect to the short term, necessarily, but ambiguous with respect to a >total game sequence of moves. (SHOUTING) YOU HAD THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION HANDED TO YOU ON A SILVER PLATTER, AND YOU REFUSED TO EVEN CONSIDER IT! IT'S SIMPLE; JUST ASK THE SAME QUESTIONS ABOUT TICTACTOE. ANALYSING TICTACTOE AND ANALYSING CHESS IS THE *EXACT SAME TASK*!!! IN BOTH CASES YOU GENERATE A TREE OF ALL POSSIBLE REPLIES, REPLIES TO REPLIES, ETC. THE *ONLY* DIFFERENCE IS THE SIZE OF THE TREE. APPLY YOUR STATEMENT "it is possible for a move to be good against some replies, and not good against others ... it may be possible in some positions ... that every possible move is ambiguous in this fashion" TO A GAME OF TICTACTOE. YOU WILL CLEARLY SEE THAT AT LEAST ONE BEST MOVE *ALWAYS* I REPEAT *ALWAYS* EXISTS FOR *EVERY* I REPEAT *EVERY* POSITION. UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS TRUE FOR TICTACTOE AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND WHY IT IS TRUE FOR CHESS. OR BE WILLFULLY IGNORANT, PRETENDING THAT NOBODY GAVE YOU THE SIMPLE ANSWER AND KEEP REPHRASING THE QUESTION  YOUR CHOICE. >OK, this is about the only thing in the latest batch of replies that >interests me. Too bad the answer to your oftrepeated question doesn't interest you. Why do you keep asking if you aren't going to listen to the answer? >I will hopefully have more to say about this subject >(solving chess, or not) but in the meantime I would like to know a few >things about the current status of these rules. First, they are not >basic chess rules, so under what circumstances do they apply? My >understanding is that they are supplemental rules of chess. Read the rule book yourself. The URL has been posted a dozen times. >This is specious. I didn't say that there were NO circumstances in >which a move is provably good, merely that in most cases there is no >provably good move. Again the refutation is right in front of you. Prove to yourself that there is always an optimal move in tictactoe. Once you understand that, do the same with six pawns on a 3x3 board with no promotion allowed. Then prove it to yourself with a standard game that has only two pawns and a king on each side. Then add pieces and compexity, proving to yourself at ever step that there is always an optimal move. Then perhaps you will understand where your thinking has gone awry. >Incidentally, I'd be interesting in getting your reply to the >following. It is scarcely unanswerable (as I phrase it below) but >since you seem to be the most informed/coherent/objective of those >taking your position in this thread, I'd be interested to see how you >reply. > >At the start of game, each one of the legal moves available to White is >known to result in games in which White wins, as well as in games in >which Black wins, as well as in games which draw. More generally, for >any move sequence (W1B1W2B2...Wn) which results in a win for White, in >the general case there are numerous move sequences which, up through >the move Bn1 (the next to last move), eventually result in each of >these outcomes. That is, at most points in a total game sequence of >moves, the partial sequence up through that point is indistinguishable >as a win, loss, or draw, since there are sequences of each kind >identical through that point. What is the selection criterion for >White to play a "perfect game"? Answer the question yourself for tictactoe. The answer for chess is exactly the same. The tree of moves is larger  to large for us  but you can imagine a braindamaged person for whom the tictactoe tree is too lrge to figure out. (This is the key point) just because he can't figure out the optimal tictactoe move does not mean that no optimal tictactoe move exists! I implore you to look at the answer that is staring you in the face.

 
Date: 16 Sep 2005 14:38:27
From: none
Subject: Re: solve for chess

Guy Macon wrote: snipped relevant parts. Dude, you are doing what you tell others not to do. Engaging someone who should have been kill filed along time ago. Although reading ignorant opinions on the internet is somewhat amusing. His, not yours.

  
Date: 17 Sep 2005 05:50:38
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: solve for chess

none wrote: >Dude, you are doing what you tell others not to do. Engaging someone who >should have been kill filed along time ago. Although reading ignorant >opinions on the internet is somewhat amusing. His, not yours. Point very well taken. I have failed to follow my own advice. :( I appreciate you taking the time to correct me on this  it really *is* best to not reply.


Date: 16 Sep 2005 18:50:44
From:
Subject: Re: solve for chess

I am still waiting to see proof that chess is "solvable". Most of the participants in this thread who maintain that it is keep throwing out terms like "optimum move" even when I have clearly shown that in the general case, any partial game sequence is repeated in numerous total game sequences having different game outcomes. For example, in the general case, if there are 14 moves in a game so far, and the 15th move is not definitive in resolving the game, then moves 1 through 15 (no matter what is chosen for 15) constitute a partial game sequence that is present as the first 15 moves of numerous total game sequences of various types (win for White, win for Black, forced draw, perpetual game). How can move 15 be said to be "optimal" when the SAME move is present in the same position of the same subsequence through the same game point, in games with radically different outcomes? Again, I tell you, it is total game sequences of moves which determine whether a particular move is good, not the other way around. This is a little like the socalled principle of survival of the fittest. The "fittest" is not the smartest, the fastest, or the strongest; stupidity, slowness and weakness survive everywhere; the "fit" are the survivors; ergo, "survival of the fittest" means only that the survivors survive. It is mere tautology. Mark Adkins msadkins04@yahoo.com

 
Date: 18 Sep 2005 11:28:01
From: James
Subject: Re: solve for chess

Before talking nonsense, read the basic scientific litterature about games, and game theory: GM AdelsonVelsky, VL Arlazarov, MV Donskoy: Algorithms for games (Springer ISBN 0387966293) On the web, there is Aske Plaat's PhD http://www.recherche.enac.fr/~alliot/ALGOS_JEU/thesis.ps Or Victor Allis' Phd: http://www.recherche.enac.fr/~alliot/allis.ps And many other things. Stop pestering people if you don't understand the very simple mathematics behind game theory. <msadkins04@yahoo.com > a écrit dans le message de news: 1126921844.576581.290680@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >I am still waiting to see proof that chess is "solvable". Most of the > participants in this thread who maintain that it is keep throwing out > terms like "optimum move" even when I have clearly shown that in the > general case, any partial game sequence is repeated in numerous total > game sequences having different game outcomes. For example, in the > general case, if there are 14 moves in a game so far, and the 15th move > is not definitive in resolving the game, then moves 1 through 15 (no > matter what is chosen for 15) constitute a partial game sequence that > is present as the first 15 moves of numerous total game sequences of > various types (win for White, win for Black, forced draw, perpetual > game). How can move 15 be said to be "optimal" when the SAME move is > present in the same position of the same subsequence through the same > game point, in games with radically different outcomes? Again, I tell > you, it is total game sequences of moves which determine whether a > particular move is good, not the other way around. This is a little > like the socalled principle of survival of the fittest. The "fittest" > is not the smartest, the fastest, or the strongest; stupidity, slowness > and weakness survive everywhere; the "fit" are the survivors; ergo, > "survival of the fittest" means only that the survivors survive. It is > mere tautology. > > Mark Adkins > msadkins04@yahoo.com >

 
Date: 18 Sep 2005 09:32:03
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: solve for chess

<msadkins04@yahoo.com > wrote: > I am still waiting to see proof that chess is "solvable". I and others have tried to explain to you why chess is solvable but you've refused to accept any explanation (or, as far as I can recall, any part of any explanation) that has been offered. I really can't see any other way of trying to convince you. The things that you claim to be blatantly false about chess (the existence of optimal moves, the gametheoretic evaluation of a position depending only on the position) are things that anyone with an undergraduatelevel education in mathematics should be able to understand and see to be true. People have tried explaining all of this to you but you've rejected everything. > This is a little like the socalled principle of survival of the > fittest. The "fittest" is not the smartest, the fastest, or the > strongest; stupidity, slowness and weakness survive everywhere; the > "fit" are the survivors; ergo, "survival of the fittest" means only > that the survivors survive. It is mere tautology. The `survival' is not survival of individuals but survival of physical characteristics. Those characteristics that make individuals more likely to survive are, in turn, more likely to be passed on to the next generation. But if you want an argument about that, go to talk.origins. Dave.  David Richerby Portable Mentholated Drink (TM): it's www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a refreshing juice beverage but it's invigorating and you can take it anywhere!


Date: 16 Sep 2005 18:37:48
From:
Subject: Re: solve for chess

none wrote: > Guy Macon wrote: > > snipped relevant parts. > > Dude, you are doing what you tell others not to do. Engaging someone who > should have been kill filed along time ago. Although reading ignorant > opinions on the internet is somewhat amusing. His, not yours. Well, we agree on one point of the above: if the awful troll calling itself "Guy Macon" had entered me in its killfile, as it has threatened to do, then it need not even take up space in the reply tree of this thread. I, on the other hand, though lacking a killfile, have early on stopped reading his silly misrepresentations (of the facts and of my description of them). So I cannot say that I fully understand your reference, above, to his message content  though it was quite obvious that he was a silly hypocrite ("doing what you tell others not to do") when he personally attacked me in claiming that personal attacks indicate weakness on the part of the attacker. I'm still waiting to hear back from David Richerby. Really, I've seen NOTHING indicating that there can be such a "solution" to chess, even theoretically. Believe me when I say that this is a mare's nest. Mark Adkins msadkins04@yahoo.com


Date: 17 Sep 2005 02:22:32
From:
Subject: Re: solve for chess

msadkins04@yahoo.com wrote: >I am still waiting to see proof that chess is "solvable". Asked for and provided. Several times. You simply refuse to accept the answer provided, rejecting it without explaining why.


Date: 17 Sep 2005 17:30:08
From:
Subject: Re: solve for chess

Simon Krahnke wrote: > * <msadkins04@yahoo.com> (03:50) schrieb: > > > I am still waiting to see proof that chess is "solvable". > > Well here it is: Do an standard AlphaBeta search on the initial > position with unbounded depth and without any forward pruning. > > Since in this configuration all values will be mate or draw, the final > result must also be mate or draw. > > That will answer the question if it's a forced mate for white or black > or forced draw, and give an optimal move for white on the initial > position. > > For a more complete solution just repeat the algorithm on other positions. > Sorry, but this strikes me as the most awful obfuscatory gobbledygook. You haven't at all proven that one side or the other can, by his first move, guarantee one of these outcomes regardless of the moves of the other side. So far as I can see, you've merely stated (quite inaccurately) that any game of chess must either result in a win by one side OR the other, or in a draw. Well, so what? As for the other party which claimed, falsely, in another message, that I've already seen such proofs "several times", but that I have rejected them without stating why, I can only honestly repeat that I have seen no such proof. I can also state that, in attempting to reply to that party's message, my reply was directed automatically to a "newsgroup" (nonexistent, I believe) called "alt.dev.null". What follows are the full headers of his message (or as full as I can get from Google Groups (whether still called "Google Groups Beta" or not): (start of headers) Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!snxit02!snxit06!snpost01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!notformail From: . =?ISO88591?B?P g E g Au gPg==?= Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.computer Subject: Re: solve for chess FollowupTo: alt.dev.null Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 02:22:32 +0000 Organization: . MessageID: <11imvf9s2nngobe@corp.supernews.com > References: <entropy.1v4c3y@news.chessbanter.com > <P8o*R+vYq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk > <1126546171.369984.221020@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com > <4328b13a$0$20054$dbd4b001@news.wanadoo.nl > <3Og*iSKYq@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk > <43299f6b$0$19056$dbd49001@news.wanadoo.nl > <1126921844.576581.290680@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com > XComplaintsTo: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 9 (end of headers) One wonders: why all the subterfuge? Just what processes was this party attempting to evade in posting a message which made false accusations against me, but to which a reply was automatically directed to a newsgroup which, so far as I know, is nonexistent and which in any case is outside both the original newsgroup and any newsgroups relevant to the topic at hand? Another way of putting it is: why are my opponents here such deceitful cowards? What are they trying to hide? These are not rhetorical questions. Answer them fully and accurately and clearly, such that I am made aware of the answers explicitly, without unnecessary delay(s). Why, for that matter, in previewing this message, has the option (from the preview screen) of posting it disappeared, instead offering only the options (from the preview screen) of editing or canceling it? Mark Adkins msadkins04@yahoo.com

