Checkers Solved - Chess around year 2060-2070!

[bob]

I think that chess will be solved but not by conventional thinking. It already seems that chess is a draw because till today not a single opening has been found that guarantees a win with best play. While it can get a win OTB, others can always find refutations and manage to equalize. So it seems from that perspective that chess is drawn, otherwise with all the millions of games one opening that will always win would have been found.

So now we look for a chess entity that will never lose. I cannot see this as being a big deal within 10 or 20 years. Improvements in software and more importantly exponential improvements in hardware would seem to make a chess entity that never loses very possible. While that may not satisfy many who want to see every single chess move possible calculated, it sure would convince me that chess is solved. If I could see a computer play say 100,000 games without a single loss against all comers including Centaurs ... that would be quite convincing.

I agree...we will prove chess is a draw, and we don't need to explore all possibilities to determine that....

Sorry, but you can't _prove_ until you do search all pathways. That's the very definition of proof. "we think" does not mean "it is".

[bob]

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070716/ ... 16-13.html

that 2060 stuff shows such an incredible lack of comprehension that it really doesn't deserve a comment at all. It is a ridiculous statement. Only down-side is that I doubt I will live long enough for the idiocy of that statement to be proven. I'm almost 60 now. I'd need to live past 120 to see that fallacy put to rest...

chess won't be solved by 2060. Or even 2160.

Robert..Never say Never! I think throwing out a number like that was irresponsibly stupid as well, but we don't know when or exactly how chess will be solved. However, I do believe it's possible with the right technology and methods.

Terry

Simply not possible with any conceivable approach. More chess positions than atoms in the universe, by a _large_ margin. Even using quantum states to store multiple bits per atom would not be possible as there are not enough states.

This is something that simply is not going to happen. Even a density of one billion times one billion times greater than today's chips won't even come close...

None of that matters! You're being myopic. First you can prune 99% + of all positions on the board. Quantum computers when fully developed and very advanced and practical will be able to compute at speeds that are inconceivable to anything you've experienced.

Not being "myopic" at all. Do you have any idea what 1% of a tree that large is? Hint: It is _not_ a small number. 1% = .01 which is close to 1/2^8.

What do you get if you divide 2^160 by 2^8? 2^152.

the math is _daunting".

They may even be able to actually connect to parallel universes and work in tandem, so yes that technology could indeed be used to solve chess.

I thought we were talking real-world scenarios? Not science-fiction...

Even Jonathan realizes this!

I'm tired of that can't be done crap...that's what truly is absurd! It holds back scientific and technological progress!

I'm equally tired of the "this will one day be doable" when it is so obvious it will not be done. We knew checkers would be solved 30 years ago, we just didn't know when. No serious researcher says that chess will be solved by 2060 or at any point in the future. Wonder why that is?

You're a computer scientist, but you've but up barriers to things that are so different to your understanding and make false comparisons to the past evolution of computers. Well, the next 50 years will move much faster than the last 50 years. That's a fact!

based on what? I bought a 2.8ghz processor 4 years ago. You can almost buy 4.0 ghz today. 4 years, not a factor of two. That's a fact...

I have seen the impossible be done and I'll see it again!

You have _never_ seen something "impossible" done. Nobody has, for obvious reasons.

Terry

I've seen you post...


Robert, you are not an expert in quantum computing, that is obvious. It will be done, it's not science fiction!

Please read more carefully. The "science fiction" applied to your "connecting parallel universes". That's not reality. In fact, there is nothing that suggests such things actually exist, other than in the minds of the great science fiction authors.

quantum computing exists. In a useless form today. But even if it becomes a reality, you are still going to be dividing a huge number (potential search space) with a small number (quantum computing speedup). You still end up with a huge number (time required to search that space, even if it is searched ridiculously fast.)

I read it fine Robert, and parallel universes are not ideas of Sci/Fi writers.

Please do some homework on this. It dates back to the 30's and much more was postulated in the 50's, and it has become serious science in the 90's to today.

You can't see past the numbers, and that is your error.

Nobody can see past the numbers. You can choose to ignore them if you wish. But to say "chess can be solved with an as yet unknown and undeveloped technology" is _not_ much of an argument. To say that if current technological improvements continue it will be solved in 60 or 600 or 6000 years is simply silly.

So I am not buying into the idea that some new technology _might_ come along that will solve chess. That's 100% speculation. As a scientist, I have to rely on what we have today, and extrapolate what is actually _feasible_ as far as future developments go, and then base conclusions on that. Not science-fiction never-never-land fairy-tale stuff.

[Terry McCracken]

I think that chess will be solved but not by conventional thinking. It already seems that chess is a draw because till today not a single opening has been found that guarantees a win with best play. While it can get a win OTB, others can always find refutations and manage to equalize. So it seems from that perspective that chess is drawn, otherwise with all the millions of games one opening that will always win would have been found.

So now we look for a chess entity that will never lose. I cannot see this as being a big deal within 10 or 20 years. Improvements in software and more importantly exponential improvements in hardware would seem to make a chess entity that never loses very possible. While that may not satisfy many who want to see every single chess move possible calculated, it sure would convince me that chess is solved. If I could see a computer play say 100,000 games without a single loss against all comers including Centaurs ... that would be quite convincing.

I agree...we will prove chess is a draw, and we don't need to explore all possibilities to determine that....

Sorry, but you can't _prove_ until you do search all pathways. That's the very definition of proof. "we think" does not mean "it is".

Funny Jonathan found a better way!

[Terry McCracken]

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070716/ ... 16-13.html

that 2060 stuff shows such an incredible lack of comprehension that it really doesn't deserve a comment at all. It is a ridiculous statement. Only down-side is that I doubt I will live long enough for the idiocy of that statement to be proven. I'm almost 60 now. I'd need to live past 120 to see that fallacy put to rest...

chess won't be solved by 2060. Or even 2160.

Robert..Never say Never! I think throwing out a number like that was irresponsibly stupid as well, but we don't know when or exactly how chess will be solved. However, I do believe it's possible with the right technology and methods.

Terry

Simply not possible with any conceivable approach. More chess positions than atoms in the universe, by a _large_ margin. Even using quantum states to store multiple bits per atom would not be possible as there are not enough states.

This is something that simply is not going to happen. Even a density of one billion times one billion times greater than today's chips won't even come close...

None of that matters! You're being myopic. First you can prune 99% + of all positions on the board. Quantum computers when fully developed and very advanced and practical will be able to compute at speeds that are inconceivable to anything you've experienced.

Not being "myopic" at all. Do you have any idea what 1% of a tree that large is? Hint: It is _not_ a small number. 1% = .01 which is close to 1/2^8.

What do you get if you divide 2^160 by 2^8? 2^152.

the math is _daunting".

They may even be able to actually connect to parallel universes and work in tandem, so yes that technology could indeed be used to solve chess.

I thought we were talking real-world scenarios? Not science-fiction...

Even Jonathan realizes this!

I'm tired of that can't be done crap...that's what truly is absurd! It holds back scientific and technological progress!

I'm equally tired of the "this will one day be doable" when it is so obvious it will not be done. We knew checkers would be solved 30 years ago, we just didn't know when. No serious researcher says that chess will be solved by 2060 or at any point in the future. Wonder why that is?

You're a computer scientist, but you've but up barriers to things that are so different to your understanding and make false comparisons to the past evolution of computers. Well, the next 50 years will move much faster than the last 50 years. That's a fact!

based on what? I bought a 2.8ghz processor 4 years ago. You can almost buy 4.0 ghz today. 4 years, not a factor of two. That's a fact...

I have seen the impossible be done and I'll see it again!

You have _never_ seen something "impossible" done. Nobody has, for obvious reasons.

Terry

I've seen you post...


Robert, you are not an expert in quantum computing, that is obvious. It will be done, it's not science fiction!

Please read more carefully. The "science fiction" applied to your "connecting parallel universes". That's not reality. In fact, there is nothing that suggests such things actually exist, other than in the minds of the great science fiction authors.

quantum computing exists. In a useless form today. But even if it becomes a reality, you are still going to be dividing a huge number (potential search space) with a small number (quantum computing speedup). You still end up with a huge number (time required to search that space, even if it is searched ridiculously fast.)

I read it fine Robert, and parallel universes are not ideas of Sci/Fi writers.

Please do some homework on this. It dates back to the 30's and much more was postulated in the 50's, and it has become serious science in the 90's to today.

You can't see past the numbers, and that is your error.

Nobody can see past the numbers. You can choose to ignore them if you wish. But to say "chess can be solved with an as yet unknown and undeveloped technology" is _not_ much of an argument. To say that if current technological improvements continue it will be solved in 60 or 600 or 6000 years is simply silly.

So I am not buying into the idea that some new technology _might_ come along that will solve chess. That's 100% speculation. As a scientist, I have to rely on what we have today, and extrapolate what is actually _feasible_ as far as future developments go, and then base conclusions on that. Not science-fiction never-never-land fairy-tale stuff.

That's just a lot of bull! You are an impossible man who can't envision technologies way beyond what exists today. The ideas are out there but you're trapped by what you know and scientific dogma. You're afraid to step out of your realm of understanding, and scientists must do this or great ideas can't be realized.

I'm sure you think it's impossible to find a method to circumvent the speed of light denying the possibility of intergalactic travel etc.

You would have said in 1956 that computers could never play chess at the master level.

You have to see beyond what you know. Einstein did look beyond the numbers!

That's what made him great!

One thing is certain, you won't find a way to approach the problem.

[George Tsavdaris]

Sorry, but you can't _prove_ until you do search all pathways. That's the very definition of proof. "we think" does not mean "it is".

Funny Jonathan found a better way!

What other way?

[Terry McCracken]

Sorry, but you can't _prove_ until you do search all pathways. That's the very definition of proof. "we think" does not mean "it is".

Funny Jonathan found a better way!

What other way?

He pruned out the BS, concentrated on wins and draws etc. He reduced the problem by a huge number of useless positions, otherwise he would have never demonstrated with the technology at his disposal that checkers is a draw if played perfectly.

We are in our infancy as far as technology is concerned.

[bob]

I think that chess will be solved but not by conventional thinking. It already seems that chess is a draw because till today not a single opening has been found that guarantees a win with best play. While it can get a win OTB, others can always find refutations and manage to equalize. So it seems from that perspective that chess is drawn, otherwise with all the millions of games one opening that will always win would have been found.

So now we look for a chess entity that will never lose. I cannot see this as being a big deal within 10 or 20 years. Improvements in software and more importantly exponential improvements in hardware would seem to make a chess entity that never loses very possible. While that may not satisfy many who want to see every single chess move possible calculated, it sure would convince me that chess is solved. If I could see a computer play say 100,000 games without a single loss against all comers including Centaurs ... that would be quite convincing.

I agree...we will prove chess is a draw, and we don't need to explore all possibilities to determine that....

Sorry, but you can't _prove_ until you do search all pathways. That's the very definition of proof. "we think" does not mean "it is".

Funny Jonathan found a better way!

Jonathan didn't find anything. best-first has been around forever, and is the logical way to search if your goal is to reach an endgame database on each branch for a proof...

[bob]

Sorry, but you can't _prove_ until you do search all pathways. That's the very definition of proof. "we think" does not mean "it is".

Funny Jonathan found a better way!

What other way?

He uses a classic "best-first" search. This way as a branch reaches the database and gets an absolute score, it is "put to rest" and receives no further searching. Once all "open" nodes have been "closed" by reaching the database, you are done.

It's not the best way to play the game, but it is the best way to prove a win/lose/draw assuming you can actually pull it off (impossible in chess).

[bob]

Sorry, but you can't _prove_ until you do search all pathways. That's the very definition of proof. "we think" does not mean "it is".

Funny Jonathan found a better way!

What other way?

He pruned out the BS, concentrated on wins and draws etc. He reduced the problem by a huge number of useless positions, otherwise he would have never demonstrated with the technology at his disposal that checkers is a draw if played perfectly.

We are in our infancy as far as technology is concerned.

He didn't "prune" a thing. He uses a best first search that simply searches and stores the tree as it is built. Once a node hits the endgame databases, it is "closed" and never used again. This slowly reduces the number of "open" nodes until each and every one has reached the endgame databases where you are done.

This is not a game-playing strategy that works anywhere near as well as alpha/beta, unless you can search deeply enough to reach the endgame tables eventually. Which we can't and never will be able to do in chess.

[bob]

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070716/ ... 16-13.html

that 2060 stuff shows such an incredible lack of comprehension that it really doesn't deserve a comment at all. It is a ridiculous statement. Only down-side is that I doubt I will live long enough for the idiocy of that statement to be proven. I'm almost 60 now. I'd need to live past 120 to see that fallacy put to rest...

chess won't be solved by 2060. Or even 2160.

Robert..Never say Never! I think throwing out a number like that was irresponsibly stupid as well, but we don't know when or exactly how chess will be solved. However, I do believe it's possible with the right technology and methods.

Terry

Simply not possible with any conceivable approach. More chess positions than atoms in the universe, by a _large_ margin. Even using quantum states to store multiple bits per atom would not be possible as there are not enough states.

This is something that simply is not going to happen. Even a density of one billion times one billion times greater than today's chips won't even come close...

None of that matters! You're being myopic. First you can prune 99% + of all positions on the board. Quantum computers when fully developed and very advanced and practical will be able to compute at speeds that are inconceivable to anything you've experienced.

Not being "myopic" at all. Do you have any idea what 1% of a tree that large is? Hint: It is _not_ a small number. 1% = .01 which is close to 1/2^8.

What do you get if you divide 2^160 by 2^8? 2^152.

the math is _daunting".

They may even be able to actually connect to parallel universes and work in tandem, so yes that technology could indeed be used to solve chess.

I thought we were talking real-world scenarios? Not science-fiction...

Even Jonathan realizes this!

I'm tired of that can't be done crap...that's what truly is absurd! It holds back scientific and technological progress!

I'm equally tired of the "this will one day be doable" when it is so obvious it will not be done. We knew checkers would be solved 30 years ago, we just didn't know when. No serious researcher says that chess will be solved by 2060 or at any point in the future. Wonder why that is?

You're a computer scientist, but you've but up barriers to things that are so different to your understanding and make false comparisons to the past evolution of computers. Well, the next 50 years will move much faster than the last 50 years. That's a fact!

based on what? I bought a 2.8ghz processor 4 years ago. You can almost buy 4.0 ghz today. 4 years, not a factor of two. That's a fact...

I have seen the impossible be done and I'll see it again!

You have _never_ seen something "impossible" done. Nobody has, for obvious reasons.

Terry

I've seen you post...


Robert, you are not an expert in quantum computing, that is obvious. It will be done, it's not science fiction!

Please read more carefully. The "science fiction" applied to your "connecting parallel universes". That's not reality. In fact, there is nothing that suggests such things actually exist, other than in the minds of the great science fiction authors.

quantum computing exists. In a useless form today. But even if it becomes a reality, you are still going to be dividing a huge number (potential search space) with a small number (quantum computing speedup). You still end up with a huge number (time required to search that space, even if it is searched ridiculously fast.)

I read it fine Robert, and parallel universes are not ideas of Sci/Fi writers.

Please do some homework on this. It dates back to the 30's and much more was postulated in the 50's, and it has become serious science in the 90's to today.

You can't see past the numbers, and that is your error.

Nobody can see past the numbers. You can choose to ignore them if you wish. But to say "chess can be solved with an as yet unknown and undeveloped technology" is _not_ much of an argument. To say that if current technological improvements continue it will be solved in 60 or 600 or 6000 years is simply silly.

So I am not buying into the idea that some new technology _might_ come along that will solve chess. That's 100% speculation. As a scientist, I have to rely on what we have today, and extrapolate what is actually _feasible_ as far as future developments go, and then base conclusions on that. Not science-fiction never-never-land fairy-tale stuff.

That's just a lot of bull! You are an impossible man who can't envision technologies way beyond what exists today. The ideas are out there but you're trapped by what you know and scientific dogma. You're afraid to step out of your realm of understanding, and scientists must do this or great ideas can't be realized.

I'm sure you think it's impossible to find a method to circumvent the speed of light denying the possibility of intergalactic travel etc.

Most likely that is absolutely true. Warp drive and wormholes not withstanding, along with the occasional klingon bird of prey.

You would have said in 1956 that computers could never play chess at the master level.

Quite the contrary. I've said (as have many others) for at least 30+ years that computers becoming invincible in chess was an inevitable thing.

You have to see beyond what you know. Einstein did look beyond the numbers!

Now you are out of it. Einstein looked _at_ the numbers, being one of the greatest math/physics minds of all time.

That's what made him great!

One thing is certain, you won't find a way to approach the problem.

Nor will anyone else, so what?