Chess is a finite game. Even with all the computers in the world working on solving it (as they have tic-tac-toe or checkers), this would take centuries. How can this be solved in the next few years?
2006-07-07
14:24:41
·
7 answers
·
asked by
Wishing The Best for Us All
1
in
Games & Recreation
➔ Board Games
Just an exhortation, but no one is on the right track yet. The question is "how can"... Not looking for negative opinions (anyone can do that), only positive thoughts... Keep trying!
2006-07-11
14:04:35 ·
update #1
If, by 'solved', you mean a set of forcing moves (starting with move one) which will win every game, the answer is, 'it can't be solved'..
"Solving" chess, like solving tic tac toe, would require a set of forced moves from the first move on...this can not happen.
With 'perfect' play from both sides, the game would end in a draw...
The only way to win at chess is to properly take advantage of your opponent's mistakes.
Unless moves are 'forced' from the first move on, anything is possible.
Mate can only be forced if certain conditions exist on the chessboard at a given time... Howver, from the starting position, mate can not be forced.
2006-07-07 15:34:42
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
The game of chess. Quite a puzzle. Even a super computer can make mistakes. To account for every possible move at any point in the game is hard enough, but to move according to how your opponent moves to win is quite the challenge. Human minds work best with a game of chess, since it is constantly changing. Perhaps, in time, a super computer may be able to constantly simulate new and new versions of chess, establishing how to win in each combination, but that would take a LONG time. Besides, we have done it with other games, we know we can here, so why waste the time? It is better to just sit down and play a good game of chess against a fair human opponent now and then anyways!
2006-07-07 23:04:56
·
answer #2
·
answered by Xtreme 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Not sure what your question is. Are you asking if there is a "one size fits all" set of moves to win at chess?
The answer is no.
Chess is a game of strategy, and any move you make can be countered in a huge number of ways, so each game is different.
Are you asking how to write a program that will always win? That assumes that the person writing the program is the best chess player that ever was - and we all know that isn't going to happen.
Perhaps you can ask your question more clearly so we can give you a more definitive answer?
2006-07-07 14:30:35
·
answer #3
·
answered by Stuart 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
There is a winning "strategy" to chess. Applying Zermelo's Theorem there is an outcome to any 2-player game of perfect information, that is strictly competative and has no chance moves there is a value that can be reached by a player. The outcome of TicTacToe if played to it's best, is always a tie. The "Value" of TicTacToe is a Draw. There is a "Value" to chess but the game is so complicated and we will never fully understand how complicated it is. we may never find it's value
2006-07-07 15:37:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anti_goat 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
it really is not had to calculate each and every achieveable bypass in Chess to conquer even the most helpful human gamers. 5-6 years in the past an IBM gadget said as Deep Blue (it calculated 2 hundred million strikes in conserving with 2d) beat the then acceptable rated human global grandmaster,....and similiar such machines are notably swifter and extra helpful on the prompt.
2016-11-06 01:53:09
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Chess can't be solved because there are more possible positions in the game than atoms in the known universe.
2006-07-07 14:28:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by Pete 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Too many variables...and every time the opponent moves it makes even a more complicated puzzle. comparing it to tictac toe or checkers is like comparing raising a child to adulthood as to growing a plant...Just because I can grow a corn stock, should I be able to aid in the maturing a human-being? Too complicated/complex.
2006-07-07 15:55:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by Pags 2
·
1⤊
0⤋