Is there a "perfect" chess game?

Originally posted by greenpawn34
I wrote a short story that got published years ago about a super-duper-duper
computer that had cracked chess so that nobody played the game anymore.

It was huge, the size of a building built in space and orbitted the Earth.

Nobody had their own computer on Earth everyone logged into this thing
via a small hand held deivice.

(This is me anticip ...[text shortened]... ut.

Which is better the Bishop or the Knight?

Corney, I know, but I got paid for it.

That is an excellent and creative short story, and I love how you integrated chess in such a natural way.

I was thinking instead of blowing a fuse the computer keeps trying to find the "better" move. And since checkmate has no greater or lesser value than checkmate, the computer is stuck "thinking" for eternity, thus, leaving mankind to learn to govern themselves.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I agree totally.

The number of games possible is theoretically finite and countable. We can theoretically construct a move tree for every position possible and go from there to show what the outcome will be. Even from the starting position.

The problem is time. It takes time to do this. Therefore it will not be done in the foreseeable future.

Per ...[text shortened]... l even be possible some day by the invention of the quantum computer. Only the future will tell.

I dug up an old thread which discussed this and I cannot see it even being possible even with a quantum computer. The number combinations are way too vast.

Thread 34101

EDIT: However, I agree that there certainly is a theoretically perfect game, just that I cannot see how we can ever find it.

Originally posted by lausey
I dug up an old thread which discussed this and I cannot see it even being possible even with a quantum computer. The number combinations are way too vast.

The number is vast, but as quantum computer doesn't work with an instruction after another instruction, a vast number can be computed in the same time.

Travelling Salesman Problem is a NP problem, which cannot be solved with a large number of points, but will be solable with a quantum computer. Also integer factorisation of loarge numbers is also impossible by ordinary computers, when large enough, but solvable with quantum computers. From this follows that cryptos are in the future meaningless.

Does the search of the perfect chess game be helped by a quantum computer? Yes, I think so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer

Originally posted by FabianFnas
The number is vast, but as quantum computer doesn't work with an instruction after another instruction, a vast number can be computed in the same time.

Travelling Salesman Problem is a NP problem, which cannot be solved with a large number of points, but will be solable with a quantum computer. Also integer factorisation of loarge numbers is also impos ...[text shortened]... helped by a quantum computer? Yes, I think so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer

Ok, done some reading more and I have to admit that using quantum computers to solve chess is plausible. I guess I misinterpreted how quantum computers worked before. Although it seems like people arguing for quantum computers in that old thread didn't really understand how they worked either and they were not very good at explaining their case.

Originally posted by lausey
Ok, done some reading more and I have to admit that using quantum computers to solve chess is plausible. I guess I misinterpreted how quantum computers worked before. Although it seems like people arguing for quantum computers in that old thread didn't really understand how they worked either and they were not very good at explaining their case.

I don't know (exactly) how they work either. Only that they do work. And they work in a highly unintuitive way too.

The future will tell if the quantum computer will work on 'unsovlable' problems.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I don't know (exactly) how they work either. Only that they do work. And they work in a highly unintuitive way too.

The future will tell if the quantum computer will work on 'unsovlable' problems.

Quantum computers? Pfff! I'll just solve chess with my brain.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Quantum computers? Pfff! I'll just solve chess with my brain.

I envy you...

I'm with Paraguy on this one. The Brain is the way to go.

These Quantum bumpkin things may be good but never will they be
able to compose a study like we saw in the other thread.

The concept of art and beauty is forever beyond them

The next generation of super computer will be the orangic computer.
A living computer that can not only do any calcualtion at speed
but imagine, create and compose.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
I'm with Paraguy on this one. The Brain is the way to go.

These Quantum bumpkin things may be good but never will they be
able to compose a study like we saw in the other thread.

The concept of art and beauty is forever beyond them

The next generation of super computer will be the orangic computer.
A living computer that can not only do any calcualtion at speed
but imagine, create and compose.

Commander Data, is that you?

I think it's the next step up.

Each computer will have it's own living brain floating around in a glucose solution.

They will write books, compose songs and at the same time give us all the
solutions to all of the problems that are plaguing humanity.

Famous brains will go up for sale.

My brain is worth £2,000. Paul Leggett's brain is worth £5,000.

Why the £3,000 difference?

Paul's brain is unused. 🙂

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I agree totally.

The number of games possible is theoretically finite and countable. We can theoretically construct a move tree for every position possible and go from there to show what the outcome will be. Even from the starting position.

The problem is time. It takes time to do this. Therefore it will not be done in the foreseeable future.

Per ...[text shortened]... me day by the invention of the quantum computer. Only the future will tell.IS THAT SIDE w, OR b.

In the context of this question the relevant characteristics of chess are that the starting position is defined, the allowable moves are defined, the player designated "white" moves first, the moves and resulting positions are known to both players and are determined by each player's choice, not chance, and a winning, losing, or drawing position is attainable by either side, depending entirely on how both sides move.

How does this differ from Tic Tac Toe, other than in complexity?

Yet, it still stands as a challenge: prove that chess is solvable, such that W or B can always win, or at least, always avoid losing. This sounds like a game theory master's thesis.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
And I mean this in the literal sense. When I was a kid I figured out how to play a perfect game of ticktacktoe. You will literally either lose or draw against me. If I'm X's I start in any corner. As O's, if you choose any square besides the center you lose.

Relatively recently the game of checkers was literally mastered by a computer, perfect ...[text shortened]... de the limits of the human mind and today's technology, is it literally unsolvable?

I sincerely hope this never happens. If the perfect game is found, and 1st, 2nd, 3rd best moves are all catagorized, it will be a very sad day for chess!😕

Originally posted by JS357
How does this differ from Tic Tac Toe, other than in complexity?

Yet, it still stands as a challenge: prove that chess is solvable, such that W or B can always win, or at least, always avoid losing. This sounds like a game theory master's thesis.

You answered your question yourself.
If it is solvable in Tic Tac Toe, it is solvable in chess.
It just takes a lot of more time, because of its complexity. Or another approach, as quantum programming, or such.

Originally posted by bill718
I sincerely hope this never happens. If the perfect game is found, and 1st, 2nd, 3rd best moves are all catagorized, it will be a very sad day for chess!😕

If the all possible chess positions are catalogued and the best move from there in a gigantic database, it would be impossible to the human brain to memorize all these. The game will remain being a fascinating game.

If someone proved that f3 is the only move that brings white to a certain win, I don't know if this will affect the opening repertoir of any serious chess player.
Fischer said that he had the refutation of kings gambit. People play kings gambit anyway.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If the all possible chess positions are catalogued and the best move from there in a gigantic database, it would be impossible to the human brain to memorize all these. The game will remain being a fascinating game.

If someone proved that f3 is the only move that brings white to a certain win, I don't know if this will affect the opening repertoir of a ...[text shortened]... yer.
Fischer said that he had the refutation of kings gambit. People play kings gambit anyway.

It would actually be interesting to watch the "perfect" opening , and how closely it resembles an opening line or even conventional chess principles.