24 Aug 06
Originally posted by tomtom232I don't think it's common sense at all. Most people I've talked to think chess is a theoretical draw.
common sense. it wouldn't be an advantage if perfect play couldn't win.
Having the first move is an advantage, but that doesn't mean it's a forced win. Being up two knights is an advantage, yet the game is a draw if White has no pawns.
24 Aug 06
less complicated games have been solved, and I don't see why chess would be an exception.
Chess being solved however won't have a great deal of effect on the game I don't think anyway, 3-4-5 peice tablebases take up a few gig, so a whole chess solultion might be bigger than most harddrives - and if it is, it would mean FICS, ICC, RHP, etc etc won't be filled with perfect-play robatrons.
....
and when it is solved, all you have to do is add a few new rules (like being able to capture your own peices) an extra pawn and a piece, on a 9x9 grid, and you have just added a new few billion positions and new life to the game, because all old solutions are "obselate"
24 Aug 06
Originally posted by bosintangWell i believe that an ultimate "solution" to the game is impossible. When a player wins a piece, it is ALWAYS because the other player has made a mistake. That mistake might have taken place 15 moves before, but it is ALWAYS a mistake that lead to the piece being lost. The same is true of checkmate. It is ALWAYS avoidable. Even if you have to get back to the 4th move of a 200 move game, there is NO such thing as an ultimately forced checkmate, a mistake is always required.
It's doubtful, but not impossible.
As someone else pointed out there are a finite (albeit incredibly huge) amount of possible positions in chess, so a perfect solution, or more likely, perfect solutions, given best play by both sides, do exist.
That's not to say these solutions will be simple, they most certainly won't be. Th ...[text shortened]... credibly doubtful, but until we do, we will never know what the outcome of a perfect game is.
24 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by tomtom232I'd like to see you win with .001 of a pawn.
yes but that is when two humans play eachother perfect play has been agreed a win with any advantage no matter how slight and having the first move in a game is a slight advantage.
I thought you needed at least a whole P to win.
24 Aug 06
Originally posted by exigentskyobviously being two knights up against a lone king is not an advantage because you can not use them to force anything but in the middle game two knights is and advantage and would win even under non perfect play.
I don't think it's common sense at all. Most people I've talked to think chess is a theoretical draw.
Having the first move is an advantage, but that doesn't mean it's a forced win. Being up two knights is an advantage, yet the game is a draw if White has no pawns.
24 Aug 06
Originally posted by ChrisBut think about how much computer technology has advanced in the past 50 years. The development has been faster than in any other field of expertise.
I would say that unless something magical happens in the realm of quantum computing, chess will never be solved.
Ever.
25 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by MahoutThat is irrelevant to the fact that the game is solvable and therefore perfect play(s) exists.
Time might prove this impossible to acheive - if the universe is not predicted to last long long enough for the calculations to be completed.
If it leads to a win or a draw is another subject on which we can only speculate.
25 Aug 06
4 edits
Originally posted by MarinkatombBut what if the forced checkmate is from move 1? The players "mistake" was choosing the colour of the piece? I'm not saying this is the case, I'm saying it can be the case. We don't really know the answer.
Well i believe that an ultimate "solution" to the game is impossible. When a player wins a piece, it is ALWAYS because the other player has made a mistake. That mistake might have taken place 15 moves before, but it is ALWAYS a mistake that lead to the piece being lost. The same is true of checkmate. It is ALWAYS avoidable. Even if you have to get ...[text shortened]... game, there is NO such thing as an ultimately forced checkmate, a mistake is always required.
There are many positions in chess we instantly reckonise as drawn or winning for one side. The starting position in chess is just *a* position. There's nothing else special about it, except its the position we reckonize as the start of a game, and we know how deeply complex other positions can arise it.