# Chess, a solved game in the future? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 13, 2007, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-a-solved-game-in-the-future/429903 "2007-12-13T20:56:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Klepto21](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/65b543/32.png) [@Klepto21](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Klepto21)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2007, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-a-solved-game-in-the-future/429903/1 "2007-12-13T20:56:25Z")
I know it’s actually somewhat old news, but I just found out about the computer program that can’t lose at checkers. I really wasn’t that surprised, seeing as how simple of a game it is (4 initial moves with 4 initial responses, all pieces the same, 32 squares, etc.) But it is still a sign of the times and of how powerful computers are becoming. I’m an avid chessplayer, so I know computers are already beating up on even the best humans in the world. Kasparov and Kramnik, among others, have been happy with their draws when they get them. So I guess I question is, how long until chess, too, is solved? I figure there must be some way to calculate how long until it is solved, by it’s complexity in comparison to checkers, and the rate at which computers are improving, but I don’t have those statistics, all I know is they exist. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2007, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-a-solved-game-in-the-future/429903/2 "2007-12-13T21:15:03Z")
Isn’t is one of those things where in order to codify it, you need a computer with more bits of memory than there are fundamental particles in the known universe? ---
**Author:** ![Santo\_Rugger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Santo\_Rugger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Santo_Rugger)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2007, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-a-solved-game-in-the-future/429903/3 "2007-12-13T21:31:08Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] Isn’t is one of those things where in order to codify it, you need a computer with more bits of memory than there are fundamental particles in the known universe? [/QUOTE] Yes, but only by a few orders of magnitude. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2007, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-a-solved-game-in-the-future/429903/4 "2007-12-13T21:32:42Z")
According to Wikipedia, the game tree complexity of chess is 10[sup]123[/sup]. If computers can do no better than brute force examination of sequential positions, they ain’t ever going there. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2007, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-a-solved-game-in-the-future/429903/5 "2007-12-13T21:36:42Z")
We might as well have the quantum computer post now; here it is: A quantum computer the size of an ant’s testicle will be able to solve chess; we don’t know how, but it will. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2007, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-a-solved-game-in-the-future/429903/6 "2007-12-13T21:39:07Z")
[QUOTE=Mangetout] Isn’t is one of those things where in order to codify it, you need a computer with more bits of memory than there are fundamental particles in the known universe? [/QUOTE] Hijacking here, but how is the number of fundamental particles in the known universe determined? ---
**Author:** ![Klepto21](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/65b543/32.png) [@Klepto21](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Klepto21)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2007, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-a-solved-game-in-the-future/429903/7 "2007-12-13T21:40:24Z")
Cool. I’ll just have to root against quantum technology! And as for “no better than brute force”, I’d like to point out that (although they are still weaklings right now) there are chess programs being made that play and analyze according to the position at hand, the way good human players do. They’ve got nothing on the supercomputers of brute force right now, but I think if anything they will be the future. ---
**Author:** ![borschevsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/97f17d/32.png) [@borschevsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/borschevsky)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2007, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-a-solved-game-in-the-future/429903/8 "2007-12-13T21:49:46Z")
It’s important to mention that the computer solution for checkers only solved the game in the weak sense. It found a single line of play that can’t be beaten, no matter what moves the second player makes. However, there are many other legal positions that do not occur in this line, where the computer does not know what to play. Something similar might be possible in chess. It might be the case that playing 1.e4 wins in all variations, and with a small enough number of possible lines to make the calculation managable. But again, such a computer would not know how to play the position after 1.d4. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2007, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-a-solved-game-in-the-future/429903/9 "2007-12-13T21:55:22Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] Hijacking here, but how is the number of fundamental particles in the known universe determined? [/QUOTE] > **[Observable universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Matter_content)** > > The observable universe is a spherical region of the universe consisting of all matter that can be observed from Earth; the electromagnetic radiation from these astronomical objects has had time to reach the Solar System and Earth since the beginning of the cosmological expansion. The radius of this region is about 14.26 gigaparsecs (46.5 billion light-years or 4.40×1026 m). > The word observable in this sense does not refer to the capability of modern technology to detect light or other informati... ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2007, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-a-solved-game-in-the-future/429903/10 "2007-12-13T21:55:38Z")
Do ants have testicles? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2007, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-a-solved-game-in-the-future/429903/11 "2007-12-13T21:58:00Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] > **[Observable universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Matter_content)** > > The observable universe is a spherical region of the universe consisting of all matter that can be observed from Earth; the electromagnetic radiation from these astronomical objects has had time to reach the Solar System and Earth since the beginning of the cosmological expansion. The radius of this region is about 14.26 gigaparsecs (46.5 billion light-years or 4.40×1026 m). > The word observable in this sense does not refer to the capability of modern technology to detect light or other informati... [/QUOTE] _Grazie._ ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2007, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-a-solved-game-in-the-future/429903/12 "2007-12-13T22:08:55Z")
[QUOTE=garygnu] Do ants have testicles? 😉 [/QUOTE] Only the male ones. ---
**Author:** ![Klepto21](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/65b543/32.png) [@Klepto21](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Klepto21)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2007, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-a-solved-game-in-the-future/429903/13 "2007-12-13T22:22:48Z")
[QUOTE=borschevsky] Something similar might be possible in chess. It might be the case that playing 1.e4 wins in all variations, and with a small enough number of possible lines to make the calculation managable. But again, such a computer would not know how to play the position after 1.d4. [/QUOTE] That’s a good idea, like how the Sicilian Najdorf has become known as basically the most perfect first 5 moves for both sides, so maybe a computer could take the main line of that and force it to a won endgame. That would be much less work, and thus I’d think much more acheivable. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2007, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-a-solved-game-in-the-future/429903/14 "2007-12-13T22:37:40Z")
[QUOTE=garygnu] Do ants have testicles? [/QUOTE] If yer aunt had balls, she’d be yer uncle. ---
**Author:** ![Montgomery0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/0ea827/32.png) [@Montgomery0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Montgomery0)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2007, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-a-solved-game-in-the-future/429903/15 "2007-12-13T23:39:57Z")
[QUOTE=Lemur866] If yer aunt had balls, she’d be yer uncle. [/QUOTE] Or you’d have a very unhappy uncle. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2007, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-a-solved-game-in-the-future/429903/16 "2007-12-14T00:28:37Z")
[QUOTE=Klepto21] That’s a good idea, like how the Sicilian Najdorf has become known as basically the most perfect first 5 moves for both sides, so maybe a computer could take the main line of that and force it to a won endgame. That would be much less work, and thus I’d think much more acheivable. [/QUOTE] ‘basically the most perfect 5 moves’ - according to who? I could do a search on Chessbase for the most popular opening in GM play, but I doubt any single opening could match all of these in popularity: Ruy Lopez (including the Open and the Marshall Gambit) Petroff (drawing weapon of choice) Caro-Kann French Pirc Queen’s Gambit (including the Slav, Accepted and Exchange) Kings Indian Queens Indian Nimzo-Indian English (with all those transpositions) Sicilian (Kan system) Sicilian (O’Kelly system) Sicilian (Dragon system) Sicilian (c3 system) Sicilian (Marcozy Bind system) ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2007, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-a-solved-game-in-the-future/429903/17 "2007-12-14T00:33:55Z")
[QUOTE=Klepto21] I know it’s actually somewhat old news, but I just found out about the computer program that can’t lose at checkers. [/QUOTE] It _must_ be able to lose. Consider the case where the program plays itself. (Unless there are draws in checkers—I don’t know the game well enough.) ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2007, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-a-solved-game-in-the-future/429903/18 "2007-12-14T00:35:19Z")
[QUOTE=Klepto21] I’m an avid chessplayer, so I know computers are already beating up on even the best humans in the world. Kasparov and Kramnik, among others, have been happy with their draws when they get them. So I guess I question is, how long until chess, too, is solved? I figure there must be some way to calculate how long until it is solved, by it’s complexity in comparison to checkers, and the rate at which computers are improving, but I don’t have those statistics, all I know is they exist. [/QUOTE] Kasparov is busy with politics now, but certainly [Hydra beating Adams 5.5-0.5](http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2476) was frightening. One way to look at the progress of solving chess completely is to study the speed of tablebases, which take all positions with a certain number of pieces and sort them into a searchable database. Then the database, \*\*using no thought at all \*\*, plays perfect chess. They’re up to 6 pieces so far. When they reach 32 chess is solved. (Won’t be for a while, though!) ‘…tablebases require a lot of memory to store the many thousands of positions. The Nalimov tablebases, which use state-of-the-art compression techniques, require 7.05 GB of hard disk space for all five-piece endings. **The six-piece endings require approximately 1.2 terabytes** ’ > **[Endgame tablebase](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase)** > > In chess, the endgame tablebase, or simply the tablebase, is a computerised database containing precalculated evaluations of endgame positions. Tablebases are used to analyse finished games, as well as by chess engines to evaluate positions during play. Tablebases are typically exhaustive, covering every legal arrangement of a specific selection of pieces on the board, with both White and Black to move. For each position, the tablebase records the ultimate result of the game (i.e. a win for Whi... ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2007, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-a-solved-game-in-the-future/429903/19 "2007-12-14T00:36:20Z")
[QUOTE=psychonaut] It _must_ be able to lose. Consider the case where the program plays itself. (Unless there are draws in checkers—I don’t know the game well enough.) [/QUOTE] Draws in checkers?! It’s the most likely result! ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2007, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-a-solved-game-in-the-future/429903/20 "2007-12-14T00:44:04Z")
[QUOTE=Klepto21] Cool. I’ll just have to root against quantum technology! And as for “no better than brute force”, I’d like to point out that (although they are still weaklings right now) there are chess programs being made that play and analyze according to the position at hand, the way good human players do. They’ve got nothing on the supercomputers of brute force right now, but I think if anything they will be the future. [/QUOTE] Programmers have been trying to prune the tree search ever since they started writing chess programs. I don’t know of any success, because there’s no logical way to tell if a move doesn’t work unless you analyse it. Good human players use a lot of pattern recognition - I don’t know of any computer program that can do this. 'The first paper on the subject by Claude Shannon, published in 1950 before anyone had programmed a computer to play chess, successfully predicted the two main possible search strategies which would be used, which he labeled “Type A” and “Type B” (Shannon 1950). Type A programs would use a “brute force” approach, examining every possible position for a fixed number of moves using the minimax algorithm … Type B programs would use two improvements: Employ a quiescence search. Only look at a few good moves for each position … The problem with type B is that it relies on the program being able to decide which moves are good enough to be worthy of consideration (‘plausible’) in any given position and this proved to be a much harder problem to solve than speeding up type A searches with superior hardware and search extension techniques’ ‘Chess 4.0 set the paradigm that was and still is followed essentially by all modern Chess programs today. Chess 4.0 type programs won out for the simple reason that their programs simply played better chess. Such programs did not try to mimic human thought processes’ > **[Computer chess](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_chess)** > > Computer chess includes both hardware (dedicated computers) and software capable of playing chess. Computer chess provides opportunities for players to practice even in the absence of human opponents, and also provides opportunities for analysis, entertainment and training. Computer chess applications that play at the level of a chess grandmaster or higher are available on hardware from supercomputers to smart phones. Standalone chess-playing machines are also available. Stockfish, Leela Chess Ze... [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-a-solved-game-in-the-future/429903.md?page=2)