Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: CHESS and Mathematical rules for solving it.

Author: Michael Yee

Date: 15:45:07 02/16/04

Go up one level in this thread


On February 16, 2004 at 17:14:16, George Tsavdaris wrote:

>
>Stefan Zipproth wrote in http://www.zipproth.com/chess/tbs.htm  :
>
>"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>Is there an alternative to table bases?
>Today's chess engines work by searching through all possible lines in a given
>position. One could think that it may be possible to find a rule that simply
>tells which move is the correct one, without having to search in the dark.
>Unfortunately, this cannot be true for two reasons:
>
>A)Apparently there is no such (perfect) rule for most 3- or 4-men-positions
>(else Nalimov would not have work), so it is very unlikely that there is such a
>rule for 32-men.
>
>B)As far as I know it is possible to prove that there is no such rule, using the
>mathematical theory of complexity.
>"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>
>I don't think we can prove A) as the number of rules we can think is infinite.
>
>As for the more important B), although i don't know the proof of the above
>theory he refers, i deeply believe that a rule that tells which move(s) is the
>correct one, exists 100%. Also i don't believe we can prove that it is not
>possible to prove that a rule for solving chess exists.
>
>So does anyone know if there is a proof or some information about the B) he
>refers above?

Regarding (b), I don't think complexity theory applies here. Normally when you
say some problem (like the traveling salesman problem) is NP-hard or
NP-complete, you are making a statement about the running time of algorithms as
a function of problem instance size (e.g., number of cities in the TSP). In the
case of chess, we just have one instance size (an 8x8 board).

Similarly, when someone proved a while ago that minesweeper was NP-complete, it
didn't mean that the game was unsolvable in any way. It just meant that there is
"likely" no algorithm with a running time that grows polynomially with the size
of the board.

Michael

Michael



This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.