Finished!
The 288 billionth game is posted below.
Now I can concentrate on Para's question.
(What was it again?....Oh Yes...The perfect game).
The game of chess itself is perfect, I cannot think of one new rule
that would make it better, and taking one thing away from the game
would ruin it.
You are playing the perfect game everytime you play a game of chess.
Therefore EVERY game you play is the perfect game.
But if you want a 'suppose God played God' answer.
With best ever play by both sides....would that produce the perfect game?
No. Because no game would be played.
God would think about his first move and discover that White was in Zugswang.
Game No. 288 Billion.
There may be a perfect game, but lets hope not.
Basically this would mean that with perfect play (presumably only possible by an infeasibly powerful computer) one of three situations would exist. Either all games are draws, or 1 side would retire on their first move.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper"I'd say it's almost definite that the game is a draw theoretically." -Bobby Fischer
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?
There has got to be a 'correct' result to the game of chess with best play by both sides, even if it is very very hard to find. Who knows - after the next quantum leap in computer technology, the solution may be found.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThere are several interpretations of "possible" and "impossible" and for that matter, of "is" in "is there a perfect game."
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?
A philosophical answer is that if there is a perfect game, it exists now in some sense of the word "exists) even if it hasn't been played and even if we are not able to demonstrate that there is a perfect game. It exists now in the sense that it is implied (maybe, "entailed" is better) by the rules of chess just as every game played by the rules of chess is implied by those rules.
But how would we prove there is a perfect game of chess without seeing it, i.e., without knowing its moves. Can we do that?
More blather is available on request... 😉
Originally posted by JS357"Perfect game" is an unfortunate choice of term for the discussion; I think it's better to say ask if there is a proper theoretical result to the game [drawn with best play?] because 'best play' could allow for several different games. "Perfect game" implies that there can be only one such game.
There are several interpretations of "possible" and "impossible" and for that matter, of "is" in "is there a perfect game."
A philosophical answer is that if there is a perfect game, it exists now in some sense of the word "exists) even if it hasn't been played and even if we are not able to demonstrate that there is a perfect game. It exists now in the sen ...[text shortened]... ut knowing its moves. Can we do that?
More blather is available on request... 😉
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by SwissGambitIt is an unfortunate term, but a stimulating thread. The question is whether chess is solvable.
"Perfect game" is an unfortunate choice of term for the discussion; I think it's better to say ask if there is a proper theoretical result to the game [drawn with best play?] because 'best play' could allow for several different games. "Perfect game" implies that there can be only one such game.
Without an element of chance, and ignoring such factors as whether your spouse might or might not withhold affection if you don't make your best damn guess and come to bed soon, chess is a game with perfect information. There is a first move available to W, such that whatever B replies, there is a second move available to W, such that whatever B replies, and so forth, W obtains the best possible outcome for W. But is the best possible outcome for W a win, draw, or loss?
That question is the really interesting one. Chess is solvable, at least, in principle if not within our lifetimes. If it isn't, it's a game of chance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess#Solving_chess
Originally posted by orion25I'm speaking in terms of mathematical correctness.
First of all, let me ask you one thing. What is, in your opinion, the meaning of perfect in this context?
Let me elaborate, perfect can be referred to beauty, as well as to mathematical correctness and can also be inferred in great victories or historical moments.
For example, a super-duper computer from the future determines the absolute best (mathematically speaking) first move for white is, say, d4
So as white the computer makes that move. And no matter how black responds the computer sees every possible outcome of every possible combination of moves carried out to the game's end (obviously we're talking numbers of possibilities that are absolutely insane).
So literally anything its opponent does this computer or alien from another galaxy literally plays the perfect response.
I would presume if the perfect game is played on both sides of the board the game would always end in a draw, which as it turns out is the case in checkers.
EDIT: If a perfect game exists (and I believe it does), it should be possible to have the ultimate cheat sheet. "If white plays X then black should play Y" kind of thing. But I can't even fathom how large that cheat sheet would be.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI agree totally.
I'm speaking in terms of mathematical correctness.
For example, a super-duper computer from the future determines the absolute best (mathematically speaking) first move for white is, say, d4
So as white the computer makes that move. And no matter how black responds the computer sees every possible outcome of every possible combination of mov ...[text shortened]... should play Y" kind of thing. But I can't even fathom how large that cheat sheet would be.
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.
Perhaps it will even be possible some day by the invention of the quantum computer. Only the future will tell.
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 anticipating today's mobile phone in the 70's).
It ran everything on the planet from hospital monitoring machines to
the traffic lights in even the smallest village.
It knew everything about everything, it ran everything.
After a few decades the human race became so dependant on this thing soon
a religion built up around it and everyone worshipped it like a God.
Some lad found the rules to this obsolete game called chess and
gave it a game. It was winning of course when suddenly....
......it shut down Switzerland. (I remember writing that bit.)
Then bit by bit (my intended pun) it closed down the whole planet
as it diverted all it's 'thinking' to this one game. (which it was winning).
I then gave a diagram similiar to this. The computer is White and to move.
It has mate in one but could not decide which piece to mate with.
It got itself all fused up trying to solve a problem which human
chess players still argue about.
Which is better the Bishop or the Knight?
Corney, I know, but I got paid for it.