4 ms·

Chess is weakly solved for all practical purposes (it's not proven but no one is able to show a winning sequence for white even with weeks to prepare vs a top e

Chess is weakly solved for all practical purposes (it's not proven but no one is able to show a winning sequence for white even with weeks to prepare vs a top engine playing with something like 30 minutes per move) and it doesn't affect the competition at all. It's impossible to remember it all anyway. Once/if chess is formally weakly solved it will change exactly nothing for human chess players. If your plan is to remember the solution you may just as well start learning top engine lines today.

tromp 3y ago
Weakly solved is a computational notion that has nothing to do with how well humans and computers play. We are far from proving the game theoretic value of Chess. Even for proving that White has a draw; i.e. that White is not in zugzwang in the starting position. We may feel very strongly that the notion is absurd, but I doubt we'll see a proof in my lifetime.
coldtea 3y ago
"Solved" in TFA sense is about a class of proofs being discovered, not about merely digital chess software playing better (even if they win every game).
- bluecalm 3y ago
  Yeah but this is not very useful concept in practical play and that was the context of my comment. Chess is at different stage today than it was a few years ago. The difference is that no matter what resources and how much time your opponent have they will not beat you as long as you remember the line shown by your home PC. I call it "weakly solved in practice" because it's exactly that: our (chess players) reality today is exactly the same as if chess was actually weakly solved.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >Yeah but this is not very useful concept in practical play and that was the context of my comment. This depends on whether the solution can be "memorized" so to speak. For games where it can, it makes playing meaningless.
    - bluecalm 3y ago
      Obviously. The point is that in interesting games (for example chess) the solution can't be memorized but parts of it can. The point is that in chess we have a solution as good as the mathematical one today (for all practical purposes). It's an interesting point because it matters for practical players - you're no longer afraid your opponent or their team can find "holes" (that is weak moves) in your preparation. You're now only afraid they will play moves you didn't expect.
SamBam 3y ago
Chess isn't remotely solved. AlphaZero trounced StockFish, playing moves that StockFish never thought possible. Meanwhile, some say that StockFish has since caught up. But regardless, if cheese engines keep getting better and bearing previous ones, then in no way can you say that any current engine has "solved" chess because a different version will beat it next year. "Solved" doesn't mean "beats humans." I see your point about what "solved" would mean for humans, though.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- bluecalm 3y ago
  I am sorry but this is completely wrong. It's true old Stockfish lost to Alpha Zero with specific rules, most notably no opening book which classical engines weren't supposed to be used at in competitive play (which is the reason SF doesn't ship with even a basic one - the user is supposed to use their own) and only one minute per move. People were able to beat "Stockfish with one minute per move with no opening book" back then given enough time and strong hardware. It's no longer the case. Chess from starting position is completely dead in computer/centaur play/correspondence play. No one is able to win a single game vs an engine running on a home PC even if they can use arbitrary amount of computing power to help. As to engines getting better: they don't get better anymore at playing chess from starting position. They get better at playing chess starting from set of unbalanced positions (chosen to be on the edge of winning/drawn) which would never occur from engine play from starting position. My point wasn't about humans but about chess in fact being weakly solved. We just don't have a mathematical proof yet.
  - SamBam 3y ago
    What? The idea that chess engines have stopped improving is ridiculous. StockFish is continuously improving. And is not just better hardware. For instance, just a couple of years ago StockFish added NNUE. This actually decreased the number of nodes it could look at per second, but the improved algorithm was so much better it bumped it's ELO by another 80 points. It would be hubris to say "Ok, it kept improving up until last month or so, but now it's perfect." If it's still improving, that means the current version can be beaten. If it can be beaten, that means we haven't solved it yet. > No one is able to win a single game vs an engine running on a home PC even if they can use arbitrary amount of computing power to help. I'm not quite sure I understand what you're suggesting, because it's not clear what "arbitrary computing power" means -- are they also running StockFish? If so, we already know that StockFish in better hardware runs better, so this is meaningless in a normal game, but I am guessing you mean with no time limits. Is your suggestion that StockFish of 2020 will always draw against StockFish of 2023 if they have "unlimited time?" If so, this seems slightly tautological. Chess is finite, so we have always known that "given enough time" anyone could enumerate all the possibilities. But if we restrict the time to, say, an hour per move, perhaps you'd say that's not "unlimited" enough. But I'm actually interested. Has anyone tried 2020 StockFish vs 2023 StockFish with huge time allowances?

tromp 3y ago

Weakly solved is a computational notion that has nothing to do with how well humans and computers play. We are far from proving the game theoretic value of Chess. Even for proving that White has a draw; i.e. that White is not in zugzwang in the starting position. We may feel very strongly that the notion is absurd, but I doubt we'll see a proof in my lifetime.

coldtea 3y ago

"Solved" in TFA sense is about a class of proofs being discovered, not about merely digital chess software playing better (even if they win every game).

bluecalm 3y ago
Yeah but this is not very useful concept in practical play and that was the context of my comment. Chess is at different stage today than it was a few years ago. The difference is that no matter what resources and how much time your opponent have they will not beat you as long as you remember the line shown by your home PC. I call it "weakly solved in practice" because it's exactly that: our (chess players) reality today is exactly the same as if chess was actually weakly solved.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >Yeah but this is not very useful concept in practical play and that was the context of my comment. This depends on whether the solution can be "memorized" so to speak. For games where it can, it makes playing meaningless.
  - bluecalm 3y ago
    Obviously. The point is that in interesting games (for example chess) the solution can't be memorized but parts of it can. The point is that in chess we have a solution as good as the mathematical one today (for all practical purposes). It's an interesting point because it matters for practical players - you're no longer afraid your opponent or their team can find "holes" (that is weak moves) in your preparation. You're now only afraid they will play moves you didn't expect.

SamBam 3y ago

Chess isn't remotely solved. AlphaZero trounced StockFish, playing moves that StockFish never thought possible. Meanwhile, some say that StockFish has since caught up. But regardless, if cheese engines keep getting better and bearing previous ones, then in no way can you say that any current engine has "solved" chess because a different version will beat it next year. "Solved" doesn't mean "beats humans." I see your point about what "solved" would mean for humans, though.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bluecalm 3y ago
I am sorry but this is completely wrong. It's true old Stockfish lost to Alpha Zero with specific rules, most notably no opening book which classical engines weren't supposed to be used at in competitive play (which is the reason SF doesn't ship with even a basic one - the user is supposed to use their own) and only one minute per move. People were able to beat "Stockfish with one minute per move with no opening book" back then given enough time and strong hardware. It's no longer the case. Chess from starting position is completely dead in computer/centaur play/correspondence play. No one is able to win a single game vs an engine running on a home PC even if they can use arbitrary amount of computing power to help. As to engines getting better: they don't get better anymore at playing chess from starting position. They get better at playing chess starting from set of unbalanced positions (chosen to be on the edge of winning/drawn) which would never occur from engine play from starting position. My point wasn't about humans but about chess in fact being weakly solved. We just don't have a mathematical proof yet.
- SamBam 3y ago
  What? The idea that chess engines have stopped improving is ridiculous. StockFish is continuously improving. And is not just better hardware. For instance, just a couple of years ago StockFish added NNUE. This actually decreased the number of nodes it could look at per second, but the improved algorithm was so much better it bumped it's ELO by another 80 points. It would be hubris to say "Ok, it kept improving up until last month or so, but now it's perfect." If it's still improving, that means the current version can be beaten. If it can be beaten, that means we haven't solved it yet. > No one is able to win a single game vs an engine running on a home PC even if they can use arbitrary amount of computing power to help. I'm not quite sure I understand what you're suggesting, because it's not clear what "arbitrary computing power" means -- are they also running StockFish? If so, we already know that StockFish in better hardware runs better, so this is meaningless in a normal game, but I am guessing you mean with no time limits. Is your suggestion that StockFish of 2020 will always draw against StockFish of 2023 if they have "unlimited time?" If so, this seems slightly tautological. Chess is finite, so we have always known that "given enough time" anyone could enumerate all the possibilities. But if we restrict the time to, say, an hour per move, perhaps you'd say that's not "unlimited" enough. But I'm actually interested. Has anyone tried 2020 StockFish vs 2023 StockFish with huge time allowances?