Unsolvable Chess

Creative Forums Art, Music, and Entertainment
65

That’s not true.

You don’t need to know every Rubix Cube combination, or Tic-Tac-Toe combination, to know the game is solved. Simple games run on simple equations and algorithms. Chess is much more complex, but the same principle applies. Genius is not require to know that you need to take the middle square in Tic-Tac-Toe. Even children figure this out quickly.

“Solving” a game means that you know distinctly which Algorithms are most efficient, possible, and “break” the game. This is done in video games or even MMOs, where vast amounts of players flock to the “Meta” builds, since those are most algorithmically efficient.

“Taking the center” also applies to Chess. This is why the best chess engines automatically run King or Queen pawn opening, and unless constrained, predictably end up in Draws / Stalemates… meaning the game is effectively solved.

1 Like
66

You are wrong. In chess, solving the game means knowing every possible (legal) board position.

Let’s ask Google:

“To solve chess means to find a perfect, definitive strategy from the starting position that guarantees either a win for White, a win for Black, or a draw, assuming both players play flawlessly; it’s finding the provably best move in every possible situation, removing all uncertainty and making it a “solved game” like tic-tac-toe (a draw) or Connect Four (first player win).”

Finding the provably best possible move in EVERY POSSIBLE SITUATION. This is required because every possible position must be accounted for since even a single change in the position leads to different iterations of other positions, leading to further differences and changes, which all must also be accounted for in terms of everything else. You cannot say for sure that a set of moves is the perfect one that wins 100% of all possible games until 100% of all possible games actually have been looked at.

For comparison take a look at the game of checkers, which has already been solved. Let’s ask Google about how many legal board positions there are for checkers, and then ask if the computer had to study all of those to solve the game:

“There are approximately 500 billion billion possible legal board positions in 8x8 American checkers.”

and,

“Yes, computers have analyzed and solved the game of 8x8 American checkers. In 2007, researchers led by Jonathan Schaeffer at the University of Alberta completed an 18-year effort, proving that with perfect play from both sides, the game always ends in a draw. The program, Chinook, analyzed the game’s 500 billion billion possible positions.”

This isn’t like a Rubik’s cube. Each move changes all future possible moves for both sides. Therefore each (legal) move must be accounted for.

67

No it doesn’t.

Anybody who plays checkers, tic-tac-toe, connect four, chess, etc. knows with a certainty what a “losing game” is. It doesn’t need to be “played through” all possible solutions. Because it is already solved.

Furthermore, players can move infinite times intentionally. Players can intentionally lose games… Neither case disproves that the game was already “solved”. Infinite possibilities is NOT required to solve the game.

1 Like
68

Essentially your argument is that in a King, King, Rook end game, that we need a super computer to calculate 50 moves of random moves because the ‘winning’, SOLVED, side doesn’t know how to finish the game, or perhaps doesn’t want to…

That’s ludicrous.

1 Like
69

Chess does not have infinite possible board positions. It just has many many many many more possible positions than checkers does. That is what makes it so hard for computers to solve.

Checkers:

50000000000000000000 legal board positions

Chess:

4800000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 legal board positons.

Eventually computers will solve all of that. It just is beyond the ability of current computers to do it yet.

Even in an endgame, if the position is not already exhausted (know for 100% CERTAINTY how to win the position) then every possible position must be studied. If there are positions that do not need to be studied it only means that those are ALREADY KNOWN to not be relevant, hence they have already been accounted for with current chess theory.

Take an endgame with K and R vs K N and B. Most games like this end in a draw, but some games end in a win for one side. Unless a certain position is ALREADY 100% PROVEN TO BE WINNING according to current chess theory and knowledge then each possible future board state must be looked at to know if that board state has an impact on the future end result of the game. Otherwise, the position is already a proven win in X moves, which means that position itself is already exhausted (solved).

70

I don’t know why you have a problem with Inferrence.

It’s common sense that 99.9% of humans who play chess, know that King-King-Rook end game is SOLVED WITHOUT computing every possibility of where the kings and rook sit on the board. A super-computer is not required to “solve” the game.

Consider this my last response. If you can’t understand this, then I don’t know if the fault is with you, or perhaps you’re trolling here.

71

Checkers is garbage, I solved it already, like tictactoe I can force a draw on any player.

Chess is not garbage but its not a game I want to invest my life into learning. It feels too rigid.

72

Chess is solved.

If a sub-2000 player makes 2 bad first moves then the win of the 2000+ player is almost guaranteed.

And these 2 bad first moves may seem undetectable and unclear to the sub-2000 player, that is why they chose those moves.

If the under-2000 player is the one who makes two bad first moves against a 2000+ player, then yes, in practical terms they are very likely to lose, assuming “bad” means clearly weakening or blundering moves and the higher‑rated player converts normally. Those early mistakes usually give the stronger player an enduring advantage (development, space, or material), and the rating gap means they’re more likely to exploit it consistently.

But it’s still not 100% forced:

  • Sometimes the stronger player fails to punish the mistakes.

  • Time controls, nerves, and style can affect the outcome.

  • “Bad” moves that are just slightly inaccurate, not outright blunders, may still be survivable.

So: two genuinely bad early moves by the <2000 side against a >2000 side will usually lead to a loss, but it’s never mathematically guaranteed.

Chess is “fixed” by putting timer limits on each move but then it doesn’t seem like true chess in my opinion. And timer limits wont help sub-2000s usually.

.

Unlike other games, a sub-2000 will 99% of the time never win against a 2000+.

This is because chess is “solved”. In other games, a sub-2000 might have unique strategies to win against a 2000+. But in Chess the 2000+ has all the superior strategies, there is no advantage in being a sub-2000, the game is solved.

Chess is unbalanced and snowbally too, where if you lose 2 critical pieces or trade a queen for a bishop you are pretty much guaranteed to lose unless the other person really sucks at the game.

.

I will give another example of a “solved” game, Conventional Racing. In conventional Racing the gameplay is broken, you “solve” the game by manufacturing the best car for the race track and placing 1st on the grid. If you place 1st on the grid and have the best car for the race track you automatically win, the game is broken. Cars that start out in 1st do not have to fight with cars in the middle of the pack. Racing videogames have a “racing line” that shows the game is “solved”. That is why Mario Kart had to add Chaos into the game, with blue spinies, in order to make the game unsolved.

Racing is “solved” even if “Time controls, nerves, and style can affect the outcome.”

.

@RealUn @ProfessorX

73

Why are you ignoring everything I wrote to you?

1 Like
74

.

Nonsense.. it sounds like you are simply just stuck in a rut.

Doing the ‘daily puzzle’‘ and ‘solving puzzles’ really helped me break through that ‘rigid’ barrier you mention.
.

:thinking:

75

“Chess is dumb”

Copium of the person who sucks at chess.

76

He’s a loser, and you are too wasting time on him.

77

…did you not read my response to you?

78

You really are this dishonest, ok I get it.

79

.
Says the trolling sheep.

80

.

This is pretty much true.. unless your opponent is having a slow day. :smirking_face: