Satisfactory attainment, if chess not truly solved? (Terry?)

[S.Taylor]

What type of style? elo approximation?
Or, how many plies of brute force without any knowledge, would make it very very good? I know it can hardly be done, but would 100 plies be much greater than anything so far?

(Even though it is probably a hypothetical situation, brute force would actually make for the greatest chess knowledge imaginable [much more in fact!] if it was at enough plies)

[Terry McCracken]

What type of style? elo approximation?
Or, how many plies of brute force without any knowledge, would make it very very good? I know it can hardly be done, but would 100 plies be much greater than anything so far?

(Even though it is probably a hypothetical situation, brute force would actually make for the greatest chess knowledge imaginable [much more in fact!] if it was at enough plies)

With no knowledge? Tough call...It would have to have some knowledge or it wouldn't compute!

With basic knowledge...at least 100 plys, Full Width, 200 would be better. ELO ~3600!

No Machine can compute 100 plys Full Width let alone 200! Some day it will be done.

This would only help in the opening and middlegame the endgame would need another 1000 ply Full Width.

So this whole method really is impractical for a very long time to come.

[S.Taylor]

What other knowledge would it need more than the recognition of the rules and that checkmate is a win and a draw (the various types) is a draw?
Do you mean that if it simply had 500 ply, then all games (with strong oppsition) would simply be pushed beyond 250 moves from early positions? (because then things will be seen as all clear!)

Everything done in brute force would obviously be perfect chess.

Oh! it also has to be programmed to know that it must play threateningly, or perfect play of opponent if kept extremely simple might succeed in a draw.

[S.Taylor]

I had two intended questions in my opening post.
The other one is, what is the next best goal, instead of actually solving chess.....atleast for the time being?
Can you define it in a particular style? Perhaps, if the best results vs existing computers and humans alike, can be achieved by a program playing aggressively and prettily to the eye, then, MAYBE that might mean that it is a major attainment........for certain intuitive reasons which would take a bit of work to explain or convince some people who don't see my point atleast intuitively.
If it shows beauty i.e, agressiveness, AND it trounces what there is now, then that might indicate that the beauty is what it looks like......very deep and innovative according to the truth.
It might mean that the slightest innacuracy, it punishes with almost certain victory.... i.e. improvement of position, which, if not winning, is certainly inviting the next slight innacuracy from even the second to top computer opponent.

[Philippe]

I have the feeling that the perfect chess game should end as a draw.

[S.Taylor]

I have the feeling that the perfect chess game should end as a draw.

But what is the perfect chess game? No mistakes? There might be more to it than that!

Probes!

Perhaps you could have a perfect chess game which is not difficult to play, simply because there is no complicated and clever probing and complications which makes it difficult till almost impossible not to go wrong.

This must be a major subject for discussion, which not every person might be suited for.

I wonder i Terry can comment here too!

[Sylwy]

I have the feeling that the perfect chess game should end as a draw.

But what is the perfect chess game? No mistakes? There might be more to it than that!

Probes!

Hello !

The perfect chess is generated by te use of the 32 men TBs !

When ???? :

Will see !

Regards,
Sylwy