What if chess would be solved?

@RuyLopez1000 said ^

@DaBassie

Great blog with great examples and descriptions.

I was planning on writing a blog about Stockfish vs 32 piece tablebase.

I abandoned it after realizing that it would be short blog. Because the answer is that there would be probably be all draws (assuming Stockfish will play the non-bad openings, no benoni only ruy lopez berlin/ italian/ qgd and openings like that).

I thought about what you said when I was writing it. About how a tablebase doesn't differentiate between multiple drawn options.

And then I thought about how a tablebase doesn't choose a move, it just shows a guaranteed outcome. So a tablebase can't play chess. A way of choosing a move would have to be added on. Thought about choosing the longest drawn line to extend the game in a drawn position. But shorter lines could have greater success.

Imagine a library with a lot of books. How many? Well, all possible books!

Here's a fun game, what book title would you choose if you had to choose one book only?

If knowledge is the capability of distinguishing gibberish from actual truths, would having all these truths stored away in dozens of closed boxes in a dark corner actually have meaning? Stored in a forgotten box or floating in the ether, what’s the difference anyway?

Here are some questions to clarify the matter:

What is knowledge?
What is 'distinguishing'?
What's the difference between gibberish and truth?

You can't answer those questions by itself.

You have to do brain science. Study the brain.

And if you have to study the brain to find those concepts, then that means the concepts are only meaningful when humans are around.

which means that the answer to

If knowledge is the capability of distinguishing gibberish from actual truths, would having all these truths stored away in dozens of closed boxes in a dark corner actually have meaning?

Is no.

I knew people would like philosophical questions.

To be fair, perhaps having the boxes is somewhat useful. Like, just in case we need them later. At least we know they exist (and we pre-calculated everything).

Not saying I disagree, just sharing some thoughts.

You're true. We don't solved chess. But if chess would be solved, i think the match will finish with a draw. Because you play the best move and your opponent will play the best move to. No problem. The blog is good.

ur true

hello

67676767

"Now, chess consists of 32 pieces in total, so an 8-piece tablebase doesn’t sound like we got very far. But keep in mind: the number of possible positions grows exponentially with number of pieces. The process will therefore only go faster and faster the further we get. Once we get to 9, the next step to 10 gets even faster, and then 11 is even faster than that, and before you know it, we reached the desired 32 pieces. A smart person told me it works like this."
That smart person wasn't very smart then. If the number of possible positions grow (in any way) with the number pieces, then that by definition will require more computational power (as there are that much more positions to analyze). So the process in fact slows exponentially. Every additional piece will increase complexity by a continuously increasing amount.

Interesting article I was also looking into analyzing wit weaker engines with low dept just to represent the human playability. I would stick to at least the NNUE versions I believe sf 13+ since most of the ones before that are quite bad positionally at low depts tat modern ones can actually still be quite good. Part of why the Leela odds bot works so well is it is purposefully programmed to not think much so it doesn't calculate and et desperate as mentioned in the article.

For ideas how many possibilities there are : https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Chess/Board_Configurations a lot of fun :)

Now, chess consists of 32 pieces in total, so an 8-piece tablebase doesn’t sound like we got very far. But keep in mind: the number of possible positions grows exponentially with number of pieces. The process will therefore only go faster and faster the further we get. Once we get to 9, the next step to 10 gets even faster, and then 11 is even faster than that, and before you know it, we reached the desired 32 pieces. A smart person told me it works like this.

This is a joke right? I don't see why this would be true, that more possible positions mean it's quicker to search through. Even if you're talking about the way tablebases are generated (iirc they go backwards from checkmate positions) the lines exploding in number as you go further back doesn't make the process any quicker.

What does ‘solving’ actually mean?
In some way, chess is already solved. With correct play, the result is a draw. I’m just going to pose this statement here without any reference.

T

oh yeah I just noticed its satire. Lmao okay you got me, i see your post

@DaBassie said ^

Yeah, I know sarcasm always gets confusing in written form.

But it has a function too... I'm a teacher and just standing in front of students telling facts, gets pretty monotone. Just very confidently throwing in some obviously wrong statements keeps the students sharp. It enhances critical thinking. I don't want that people just think they can assume everything I say is correct. I'm also just a random person on the Internet, I make mistakes too.

And sometimes people just get totally confused... Then I have gone too far lol

Tnx for the comment though. I'm 100% sure you're not the only one that got confused.