Insights Blog
-- Browse All Articles --
Physics Articles
Physics Tutorials
Physics Guides
Physics FAQ
Math Articles
Math Tutorials
Math Guides
Math FAQ
Education Articles
Education Guides
Bio/Chem Articles
Technology Guides
Computer Science Tutorials
Forums
Chemistry
Biology and Medical
Earth Sciences
Computer Science
Computing and Technology
DIY Projects
Trending
Featured Threads
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Chemistry
Biology and Medical
Earth Sciences
Computer Science
Computing and Technology
DIY Projects
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Other Sciences
Computing and Technology
Is chess fundamentally harder to "effectively" solve than Go?
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="PAllen, post: 6852570, member: 275028"] In my OP I stated that opening position being drawn and many positions with best play from opening having multiple moves that maintain a draw were conjectures supported by experience, not proven. I wanted the thread to assume these were true, to discuss their implications, not the conjectures themselves. However, in my experience, a vast majority of top GMs and top chess programmers believe these conjectures are true. There is no tension between this and the fact that white has a slight practical advantage. Supporting the conjectures are the following: - the stronger the engines the higher the draw rate; as noted by [USER=511972]@TeethWhitener[/USER] , TCEC has even adopted the long established checkers tournament trick of prescribed opening sequences (played for both sides) to avoid ridiculous draw percentages. Human top player experience is largely consistent with this. - seven piece table bases establish that there are huge numbers of provable draws for different combinations of pieces and pawns [even some for positions where pieces are equal and one side is 2 pawns up]. Further, the results strongly match what human players had concluded earlier - which makes the exceptions interesting (positions previously believed drawn that are not, and positions previously believed won that are actually drawn). Unless the character of the game undergoes some shift for more pieces, this is pretty strong evidence. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Post reply
Forums
Other Sciences
Computing and Technology
Is chess fundamentally harder to "effectively" solve than Go?
Back
Top