Ethod or algorithm that will always win in chess

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pythagorean
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Algorithm Chess
Pythagorean
Science Advisor
Messages
4,416
Reaction score
327
is there a method or algorithm that will always win in chess or can the algorithm/method always be fooled by the choices of the opponent?

I know for a while there was a lot of noise over Big Blue, but I'm curious where the subject sits today.

In all the games I play (i.e. amateur games) there's lots of observation and psychology involved (there's always a chance someone will make an obvious mistake and forfeit a position or piece that they could have protected, especially if you move in a way that makes them focus on the short term instead of the long term.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Chess has not yet been "solved" -- although there are good computer programs for chess, they're not unbeatable. The most complex game I know that has been solved is checkers.

Edit: At least one of the following is true:
1. There is an algorithm that can play White from the opening such that Black can never win (the result is always a draw or a White win).
2. There is an algorithm that can play Black from the opening such that White can never win (the result is always a draw or a Black win).

I suspect that both are true: that either player can force a draw.
 


I think the current method computers use to play chess is to look at all possible moves, several turns ahead and then select the current move which leads to the best/safest outcomes on average.
 
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Thread 'Detail of Diagonalization Lemma'
The following is more or less taken from page 6 of C. Smorynski's "Self-Reference and Modal Logic". (Springer, 1985) (I couldn't get raised brackets to indicate codification (Gödel numbering), so I use a box. The overline is assigning a name. The detail I would like clarification on is in the second step in the last line, where we have an m-overlined, and we substitute the expression for m. Are we saying that the name of a coded term is the same as the coded term? Thanks in advance.

Similar threads

Replies
29
Views
10K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Back
Top