Sorry not defensible at this time, slept over it’s Sunday, God declared it as a day of rest.
of that may follow.
What?
In fact Sorya, sorrily about that lapse but there is a bright side, that is: India goes hand and hand with Nichirin Buddhism ‘s emerging characteristics, in fact it’s proof:
What is Three-Dimensional Chess?
Three-dimensional chess (3D chess) is a chess variant that replaces the standard two-dimensional board with a three-dimensional array of boards. This format allows pieces to move not only horizontally and vertically but also across different levels, adding a new layer of strategy to the game. The concept has been popularized in various forms, particularly in science fiction, most notably in the Star Trek franchise.
History and Variants
2
2
1
How to Play
2
Cultural Significance
2
Conclusion
Three-dimensional chess offers a fascinating twist on the traditional game, challenging players to think in multiple dimensions. Whether through its historical variants or its portrayal in popular culture, 3D chess continues to intrigue and engage chess enthusiasts and casual players alike. For those interested in exploring this variant, various online platforms and physical sets are available to experience the unique challenges it presents.
Sorry for the delay Surya
1 Like
.
..and have you been interested in exploring this variant? ..now that really would twist One’s melon man. 
As if normal chess wasn’t hard enough, now it has to have extra dimensions. Well that’s me fully excluded now, thanks. I don’t know if chess is solvable, but it sure isn’t solvable by me. Last game I played I was beaten by a twelve year old. Stupid game anyway. Checkers (draughts) is a real man’s game.
2 Likes
Yes, indeed, it would. Albeit by a novice to boot.
1 Like
That’s not what it means to solve the game.
Musk can tweet all he wants, but what’s his chess rating? Probably around 1500 
1 Like
Solving Chess means using optimal openings, such as King Pawn and Queen Pawn from white …doing so with the best chess-engines, results in Draws 100% of the time. Which is why they now test chess-engines on sub-optimal openings, in order to demonstrate wins and losses.
Chess is solved.
A fun variant of chess that I made up with a friend once is where, when you move a piece, you can choose to move it two times. For example, you could move a bishop across a diagonal, stop it on a square, and then move it again along the same or a different diagonal. As long as all of the moves involved are legal under normal chess rules. An optional additional rule to this variation is that if you surround an enemy piece by three or more of your own pieces (if at least 3 of the 8 possible square surrounding it are occupied by your own pieces) it becomes captured.
No, solving chess means every possible position is known and analyzed, so that the perfect game is discovered. That has not occurred with chess (it has occurred with checkers though), mostly because in chess there are something like 10^120 possible chess games, which far exceeds even the number of atoms in our universe. Even AI cannot exhaust all of these possibilities, but someday a quantum AI computer will probably do it.
To compare this with checkers,
“Solving checkers means using computer algorithms to analyze every possible move, proving that with perfect play from both sides, the game ends in a draw. Announced by Jonathan Schaeffer and his team in 2007, this “solved” status required roughly 18 years of computation, creating a database of 39 trillion positions to verify that no forced win exists”
“The Process: Researchers used the program Chinook to analyze the game, which has over 500 billion billion (5×10^20) possible positions.
-
The Database: The solution involved creating a database of all endgames with 10 or fewer pieces remaining.
-
Implications: While it means the game is “finished” in terms of analysis, it does not mean humans can play perfectly, as the solution is not a simple strategy but a massive computational proof.
The solution confirms that if two players make no mistakes, the match will result in a draw. “
1 Like
Another fun variant is called “Monopoly”, or “Cards Against Humanity”.
No but seriously, since Deep Blue kicked Kasparov’s ass, undoubtedly the funniest thing ever to happen in the world of chess, Go is the new challenge for AI.
And it’s a testament to the human mind that a supercomputer performing trillions of calculations and possible moves has only just begun to beat humans in that game.
Go the humans!
Although AI systems like AlphaGo have surpassed human champions, they do not play perfectly—they use machine learning and heuristics to approximate strong play, not to solve the game.
In contrast, simpler games like checkers have been solved (weakly, in 2007), but Go remains unsolved and is considered EXPTIME-complete, meaning it cannot be solved in polynomial time.
Off-topic, but who cares. The topic is chess.
1 Like
Yes and I think it is important to note that AI and computers are not “playing” chess or Go, or anything else. A human can play a game. What is basically nothing but an oversized calculator cannot. But the oversized calculator can be setup to crunch trillions of positions and determine the best outcome for a given situation. Wow, amazing That is like saying because a human cannot computer 234598734203849032834 x 334232323.894533 in his head in less than 0.1 second like a computer can therefore the human is not thinking as well as a computer thinks. Such is false because there is no thinking involved for the computer, it is literally 1s and 0s. That is not how the human brain works.
Also, consider this: computers operate at a much much higher time scale than humans do. Even if we want to equate what computers are doing to a human thinking, the actual amount of information / data being processed by a computer is orders of magnitude greater than a human in the same amount of time. Therefore, to make it fair, the chess computer should only be allowed a tiny fraction of the amount of time that a human is allowed. If Kasparov gets 3 hours for the chess game, then maybe the chess computers gets 1 second. Whatever the fair ratio would be to how much more time a computer has compared to how much time a human has, given the differences in processing speed. If it takes Kasparov 1 minute to analyze 20 different chess board positions, yet it takes the chess computer only 0.001 seconds to analyze those same 20 chess board positions, then the chess computer’s game clock should be 20 / 0.0001 or 200,000 times shorter than Kasparov’s game clock. That would actually make the game more fair in terms of thinking time for each side. Otherwise it’s just comparing apples to oranges.
1 Like
Imagine playing a chess game where your clock has 1 minute and your opponent’s clock has 200,000 minutes. Who do you think would win? This isn’t hard to figure out.
1 Like
Another interesting variant: play to loose. Easier than regular chess? Maybe.
1 Like
A lot easier, trust me on that one.
What you say? I trust you on most everything, implicitly
You can trust me, implicitly, just don’t quote me on that..
It’s not just that, the machine has to analyse every single possibility, no matter how unfeasible it is, the human mind can sort through the detritus and focus on what is applicable instead. Brains are much more efficient than any algorithm, and they only use the same power as an LED bulb:
In contrast to power-hungry computers, brains have evolved to be energy-efficient. It is estimated that a human brain uses roughly 20 Watts to work – that is equivalent to the energy consumption of your computer monitor alone, in sleep mode. On this shoe-string budget, 80–100 billion neurons are capable of performing trillions of operations that would require the power of a small hydroelectric plant if they were done artificially.
As far as storage goes, information that isn’t relevant is automatically discarded in favour of that which is. AI is extremely primitive in comparison, everything it does is through brute force, whereas the human mind is much more efficient and elegant.
Yeah so it can beat a human, but look at the effort, energy and waste that is required to do that.
AI is great as a tool, but as a replacement for the human mind it is a bad fit in many regards, especially for creative endeavours.
1 Like
@RealUn Chess lacks true chaos, is too rigid and mechanical.
1 Like