Is it Possible to Program a Chess Player That Can Never Be Defeated?

[Moses]

Hey,
Well, all of us know that with a bit of concetration at the X-O game you can never lose a game: either draw or to win if the other person mis-put his sign.

But does anybody think that the same will be for the chess game..checkers..cards...etc in a very,very very complex way..but still it could happened [Well, the question might sound non-sense and pointless..i know...but i am trying to programa chess player that never can get defeated..andi do not care -until the moment- if he could win- i do not want to waste hours in programming impossible thingy!] "Copy Right reserved for Moses designing company "
\

 

[NateTG]

Chess is deterministic, so with infinite compute power, it should be possible to explore the entire chess state tree, and consequently make a 'perfect' chess player. However, the number of positions is, if I recall correctly, something like 10^40 which is outseide the capability of current computers to handle.

Chess programs use different tactics. You might want to google for 'computer chess' for more information.

 

[kreil]

Being an avid chessplayer, I know that there is a DISTINCT difference between human chess players and computer chess programs. Chess computers never, ever make tactical mistakes, since they can see so far ahead. However, chess computers are largely incapable of making positional decisions; something it seems only humans can do. This was exemplified very well by the Kasparov vs Deep Fritz(Computer) match that was on espn within the last year. In one of the games, Kasparov tied the computer up so badly that the computer could not see a simple positional pawn move, and instead started wasting moves/tempos by moving the same piece back and forth. Also, chess computers value capturing things more than improving their positions. In order to program a chess computer that can never lose, you would have to be a super grandmaster and program in complex positional ideas. This, combined with perfect calculation, would be what you want.

 

[Moses]

Well, thank you both for help,

I noticed the problem that PC's has about the "position" thingy in chess ususally [BTW: I am a Chess Master..I play against some programs and i figured out knwoing there tree that with some sets of movements...i can ruined him always and in almost the same moves every time...]

In my programming process...i am trying to start from the end of the game: I am trying to make the PC tactic is to reach the end of the game with very few peices to him and the opponenet...then by that "the position trick" will be much easier for the pc to catch...[For example: if you have a king and the com has a King and a Castle...whereever your peices and his peieces are "if it is an ok program" he can always wins this situation...not tie because of bad moves..] I will try to make the PC strategy is to "destroy many peices" first even he will lost many peices...then the reasl game will start!

I am using now lost of probabilities and mathematics processsing...and the sad thigny is the most important steps in the calculation i have to do them... stupid machines!

 

[Alkatran]

Being an avid chessplayer, I know that there is a DISTINCT difference between human chess players and computer chess programs. Chess computers never, ever make tactical mistakes, since they can see so far ahead. However, chess computers are largely incapable of making positional decisions; something it seems only humans can do. This was exemplified very well by the Kasparov vs Deep Fritz(Computer) match that was on espn within the last year. In one of the games, Kasparov tied the computer up so badly that the computer could not see a simple positional pawn move, and instead started wasting moves/tempos by moving the same piece back and forth. Also, chess computers value capturing things more than improving their positions. In order to program a chess computer that can never lose, you would have to be a super grandmaster and program in complex positional ideas. This, combined with perfect calculation, would be what you want.

It all depends on how the board's 'score' is calculated. It's very easy to just add up the number of peices, but there are many many many ways for a board to be 'positioned' well. The trick is finding some common factor (like holding the center) that makes positions "good".

 

[Moses]

It all depends on how the board's 'score' is calculated. It's very easy to just add up the number of peices, but there are many many many ways for a board to be 'positioned' well. The trick is finding some common factor (like holding the center) that makes positions "good".

Well, there is the "coloumn and raws" rule as well, which it sees how much squares,raws,colums you controlled and how they are from the opponent king, the diagonal lines here has a special case..since not all diagonal lines has the same length at chess boards...