Chess solved?

[Uri Blass]

I once ran SF Matefinder on this position for over a day:

[d]r3k2r/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
It reached a depth of 51 but couldn't find a mate. Existing programs are not optimized to be most efficient when there is a huge advantage but this shows that we are far from solving chess.

Importantly, though, I'm confident that most programs could find a way to forcibly win material from that position.

Again logic, who said that winning material wins chess games!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

* the above position is clearly a win for white


Then prove it.......

Thinking something and proving some thing is not the same thing!

I am sure that white is winning even without proof and it is more than thinking that white is winning.
It is not that I think that probably white is winning but I think that I may be wrong(that may be for 1 pawn handicap).

I am sure white is winning more than I am sure that the sun is going to rise tomorrow(another claim that I cannot prove).

[mwyoung]

Two facts that are factual:

1. As long as something like Moore's Law holds, we continue to be able to do bigger tree searches as time passes

2. No way has yet been found of winning material from the starting position

That forced win of material from the starting position is not possible at any depth is speculation on my part, not fact - but I feel confident that it's correct.

I'm not sure how that helps. You can win by checkmate when even or even far behind in material.

It does help, and echoes exactly what I have said.

[mwyoung]

I once ran SF Matefinder on this position for over a day:

[d]r3k2r/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
It reached a depth of 51 but couldn't find a mate. Existing programs are not optimized to be most efficient when there is a huge advantage but this shows that we are far from solving chess.

Importantly, though, I'm confident that most programs could find a way to forcibly win material from that position.

Again logic, who said that winning material wins chess games!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

* the above position is clearly a win for white


Then prove it.......

Thinking something and proving some thing is not the same thing!

I am sure that white is winning even without proof and it is more than thinking that white is winning.
It is not that I think that probably white is winning but I think that I may be wrong(that may be for 1 pawn handicap).

I am sure white is winning more than I am sure that the sun is going to rise tomorrow(another claim that I cannot prove).

And that goes to showing you are proving something. Is much different then knowing something. One you have to wait for to know you are right.... Logic is a bitch!

[jp]

The main problem, as I see it, is that the fundamental nature of chess is exponential.
So I think that a solution will have to deal with that level of complexity.
Any simpler sort of solution would be some kind of stroke of good fortune (like a forced solution nearby).

The "stroke of good luck" that is very likely to exist in chess would be an unexpected emergent pattern. They do tend to arise in complex systems - even when you try to design them out (and nobody has done that in chess).

Do you mean this "stroke of good luck" to be related to chess in general (i.e. the basic rules of moving, winning and drawing) or do you mean all that plus the specific (opening) position we have?

If you mean the former (i.e. the stroke of good luck covers all chess positions), there are theoretical CS reasons why that should not be the case.

[syzygy]

The main problem, as I see it, is that the fundamental nature of chess is exponential.
So I think that a solution will have to deal with that level of complexity.
Any simpler sort of solution would be some kind of stroke of good fortune (like a forced solution nearby).

The "stroke of good luck" that is very likely to exist in chess would be an unexpected emergent pattern. They do tend to arise in complex systems - even when you try to design them out (and nobody has done that in chess).

Do you mean this "stroke of good luck" to be related to chess in general (i.e. the basic rules of moving, winning and drawing) or do you mean all that plus the specific (opening) position we have?

If you mean the former (i.e. the stroke of good luck covers all chess positions), there are theoretical CS reasons why that should not be the case.

It is "very likely" that chess "unexpectedly" has a structure that allows it to be solved with current technology. It would be "very surprising" if towforce is not going to be the one to find it. After all, he is confident. Heh.

[Alayan]

Again logic, who said that winning material wins chess games!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

King value = infinity. Other pieces values are debatable.

You can win material and still have a draw (fortress, insufficient material, and so on). But you cannot win a game of chess without winning material, because winning a king is worth more than losing all your piece except those required to checkmate.

Checkmate is another way to say forced king capture.

Also, being able to force material advantage at ply depth X doesn't guarantee being able to force material advantage at any ply Y > X (capture/recapture also muddy things). But the set of position from which you can force a win is a subset of the set of positions from which you can force a lasting material advantage (there is a ply depth D such that for any depth D+2*X, X>= 0, until the game's termination, you can force the material advantage).

EDIT : towforce has made many questionable assertions in this thread, but the assertion that to win a game of chess you need to win material relative to the initial material balance is obviously true once you understand that the king too has a material value greater than that of any of the other (possible) pieces combined.

[mwyoung]

Again logic, who said that winning material wins chess games!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

King value = infinity. Other pieces values are debatable.

You can win material and still have a draw (fortress, insufficient material, and so on). But you cannot win a game of chess without winning material, because winning a king is worth more than losing all your piece except those required to checkmate.

Checkmate is another way to say forced king capture.

Also, being able to force material advantage at ply depth X doesn't guarantee being able to force material advantage at any ply Y > X (capture/recapture also muddy things). But the set of position from which you can force a win is a subset of the set of positions from which you can force a lasting material advantage (there is a ply depth D such that for any depth D+2*X, X>= 0, until the game's termination, you can force the material advantage).


EDIT : towforce has made many questionable assertions in this thread, but the assertion that to win a game of chess you need to win material relative to the initial material balance is obviously true once you understand that the king too has a material value greater than that of any of the other (possible) pieces combined.

-----But you cannot win a game of chess without winning material, because winning a king is worth more than losing all your piece except those required to checkmate.-----


"Capturing the King is an illegal move according to FIDE. The objective of each player is to place the opponent's king 'under attack' in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. ... The opponent whose king has been checkmated has lost the game."

[Alayan]

You can play dumb if you wish, but this sort of trolling is a waste of time for everybody.

[mwyoung]

You can play dumb if you wish, but this sort of trolling is a waste of time for everybody.

You are one who said it.

[Angrim]

I have wasted a fair amount of cpu time trying to prove that giving queen odds is a forced loss.

So what can you prove is a forced loss, Queen + rook, Queen + 2 rooks ?

I haven't bothered to search much on more extreme odds.
But even 4k3/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQ - 0 1 is not trivial to prove, although looking at a few lines, it looks like it could be done in a day or so.
The main problem is that the white pieces in the start position are not developed, so you have to spend a fair number of moves getting out from behind the white pawns before all that extra material helps any. And the black pawns help slow down the mate some also,
4k3/8/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQ - 0 1 is a mate in 6 or less.