Houdini 6 has been released

[Jouni]

Addition: Houdini 6 tactical with syzygy disabled improves a lot and got now 100 solutions.

[Houdini]

Addition: Houdini 6 tactical with syzygy disabled improves a lot and got now 100 solutions.

That makes sense, Syzygy is counterproductive for solving mates.
Houdini doesn't implement any fancy (or "natural") stuff and will be perfectly happy with a tablebase win anytime .

[Eelco de Groot]

On the Toga Developers Bulletin Board, now sadly defunct. I hope Shaun who started the TDBB is okay and everything, he still has not read a PM I sent in April. But we had this truckdriver who was also a programmer. With Scorpio bitbases, he only returned on a draw in a tablebase/bitbase, not the loss or win. That way you don't interfere with matedistances and it is still very useful to know that some things are drawn, for instance fortress positions that throw off default search.

[Graham Banks]

On the Toga Developers Bulletin Board, now sadly defunct. I hope Shaun who started the TDBB is okay and everything, he still has not read a PM I sent in April.

Haven't heard from Shaun for a while, but he's a Facebook friend and all seems well.
He's currently an IT engineer at Eurova.

[Eelco de Groot]

Thanks Graham1 That's very good to hear! I was hoping you might have some information as Shaun was in CCRL. I remember that Shaun also had chessplaying kids I believe, so he would not likely have lost all interest in chess. Good to know he is okay!

Regards, Eelco

[MikeB]

Addition: Houdini 6 tactical with syzygy disabled improves a lot and got now 100 solutions.

That makes sense, Syzygy is counterproductive for solving mates.
Houdini doesn't implement any fancy (or "natural") stuff and will be perfectly happy with a tablebase win anytime .

+10!

[jefk]

since chess is not going to be weakly solved in our lifetime anyway.

that's your opinion.
personally i still think, that with application of Zermelo's theorem,
chess is solved and the outcome is a draw of course.
But i'm not going to repeat my arguments

[syzygy]

since chess is not going to be weakly solved in our lifetime anyway.

that's your opinion.
personally i still think, that with application of Zermelo's theorem,
chess is solved and the outcome is a draw of course.
But i'm not going to repeat my arguments

From a mathematical point of view, chess is a finite game and can be trivially solved by application of the minimax algorithm, but I don't believe you can produce a proof that chess is a draw which can be verified within our lifetime. Zermelo's theorem will in any event not be of help in tackling the computational effort. So chess may be "solved" according to some definitions, but it is not "weakly solved" within the normal meaning of that term.

[jefk]

From a mathematical point of view, chess is a finite game and can be trivially solved by application of the minimax algorithm, but I don't believe you can produce a proof that chess is a draw which can be verified within our lifetime. Zermelo's theorem will in any event not be of help in tackling the computational effort. So chess may be "solved" according to some definitions, but it is not "weakly solved" within the normal meaning of that term.

again a very definite statement, but eg. Prof Jaap vd Herik states that chess probably will be solved in a few decades, with the developments going faster than expected; that is, weakly solved, i presume.
Minimax ? i thought that alfa-beta is universal validity ? maybe not for some math purist, but for a weak solution that doesn't matter.

Then i don't think it's a pure computational problem, i once had this discussion with Bob Hyatt, showing him some games which have been solved without brute force computation. So i do think one of the theorems of Zermelo can be applied, at least in a common sense matter.
If you cannot find a winning advantage (from the opening) than it's a draw, simple as that. Look at some results H6 vs Kom11, only one win out of 33 games. We are approaching the dreaded draw zone...

[jefk]

So i do think one of the theorems of Zermelo can be applied, at least in a common sense matter.

ok, not only Zermelo, i admit. There has been a guy here once who suggested graph theory. Now if i'm correct, Cerebellum already is using some graph methods, rather than pure minimax. Ask Zipproth if White can win in chess; maybe he's still busy Not that i'm saying btw that openings are not important, on the contrary. But if your Black opponent knows how to defend perfectly than you cannot win, simple as that.
Also i once mentioned 'strategic Nash equilibrium' but i admit that's a bit difficult to apply to chess. We have positional algorithms, including some possible improvement like maybe coming from eg. Tsvetkov, but they have no value in absolute sense, i admit. But that doesn't matter for me. My experience is that every improvement in opening theory for White, can be counteracted by Black, with a draw again as result. Certainly with the Fide rule, and a relatively high drawing margin. Kaan's theorem in chess..