M ANSARI wrote:all you need is maybe a 1000 TB book
That's a good point. Maybe the approach to solve chess shouldn't be from end to start but from start to end? Currently, all 6-man endgames have been solved, but they contain a lot of nonsensical positions, such as KNNN vs KN (0.78 GB in the Nalimov format, by the way). So instead of working on positions like this, maybe the opening books should be made wider and wider, deeper and deeper, to eventually solve chess that way?
Yes all 6 piece EGTB's have been solved and soon I would expect 7 EGTB's to also be solved. Who knows in 20 years this could also include 8 or even 9 piece EGTB's. As you have mentioned not all the EGTB's need to be solved to have a 100% win situation since you will find many EGTB's are really not necessary because no chess game will reach the point of an endgame which has NNNNK vs NNNK, because promoting to a Queen would usually win at a much earlier time and end the game. In the end I think it will be a comination of existing things that will evolve and thus solve chess. Again the number of possible chess moves should not be used as the main stumbling block to solving chess.
Dann Corbit wrote:
After all, the energy equivalence was thought to be some sort of parlour trick in 1902.
It's no trick, even no postulate. It is very well and mathemically correctly derivated from just 2 Axioms. Those two axioms themselves are verificated in thousands of experiments.
Now, I have literally no idea how such a thing might be accomplished. It's just that impossible things become possible all the time.
Then those things weren't impossible... All rules guys like Newton and Einstein claimed are still correct nowadays.
I read a 1920 science book that had all sorts of nonsense in it (proving such things as why it is impossible to fly faster than sound or impossible to put a rocket into orbit).
Let me guess... The name of the author of this pamphlet is neither Albert nor Isaac?
BTW, I know the "proof" that it wasn't possible to put a rocket into orbit. It 's ridiculous wrong and not to compare with the existing theories by Einstein & Co.
Given that humans understand chess better than computers, chess will probably be solved by a Top GM, someone at the level of Kasparov, Kramnik, Topalov or Anand. Even now there are books and software written by GMs and International Masters that teach the heuristics of the game.
Uri wrote:Given that humans understand chess better than computers, chess will probably be solved by a Top GM, someone at the level of Kasparov, Kramnik, Topalov or Anand. Even now there are books and software written by GMs and International Masters that teach the heuristics of the game.
Humans write chess programs so if a chess program is going to solve the game then it is clear that the game is solved by humans.
It is possible that a top chess player is going to write a program to solve the game but I see no reason to assume it and it is clear that human with no help have no chances to solve the game because the number of possibilities is to high to construct a mathematical proof that humans understand.
Uri, a "mathematical proof" has nothing to do with "number of possibilities". Out of all mathematical proofs I have seen, very few are considering distinct cases.
playjunior wrote:Uri, a "mathematical proof" has nothing to do with "number of possibilities". Out of all mathematical proofs I have seen, very few are considering distinct cases.
I cannot prove that there is no short mathematical proof to the solution of chess but I believe that there is no short mathematical proof that human can understand.
There may be a proof that does not consider every possibility and only has size of 10^20 but I do not believe that there is a proof that human can understand.
Note that the claim that every map needs only 4 colors was proved with the help of computer so I believe that a proof with the help of computer for the solution of chess may be possible in the future.
