Since this algorithm is very parallelizable, this leaves us needing 10^26th such computers or about one for every atom in my body, together with the ability to collect their results. 2. At each depth (or "ply" as it's as its referred to in computer chess terminology), all possible moves are examined, and the static board evaluation function is used to determine the score at the leafs of the search tree. Wait a minute - this means there is a perfect strategy for White! C'mon. Back then, I thought we could solve Chess conventionally, if done properly. Given checkers was solved in 2007, and the computational power to solve it in 1 second will lag by about 33-35 years, we can probably roughly estimate chess will be solved somewhere between 2055-2057. Function can be whatever as long as it works, as it allows a computer to compare board positions, to see which are the desirable outcomes. So, who had the urge to downvote my answer? I just commented to say not to let random down-voters get you down. Stack Overflow. Othello is another game that current computers can easily play perfectly, but the machine's memory and CPU will need a bit of help, Chess is theoretically possible but not practically possible (in 2008). See: Note: m = 5898 is the number of "moves". The question is, does there exist a fail-safe strategy for never losing the game? Finally, we are done with first and second level, next we have third level (back to red square again) which means computer’s turn again, so it makes the choice with MAX score, which is 7. So the nodes on that level are all given values. Same things for other square in the same level. Edit: Hmm... looks like I ruffled some feathers here. Small code can't be very strong. For the record, there are computers that can win or tie at checkers. PETER DOCKRILL . To find the perfect game you would then just need to use the Minimax algorithm (see to compute the optimal moves for each player, which would lead to one or more optimal games. The average $1000 desktop will be able to solve checkers in a mere 5 seconds by the year 2040 (5x10^20 calculations). However, you still occasionally come across a chess program which will draw this way (even if it’s winning materially). If the computer cannot find the best path before the time limit for the move, it might very well make a mistake by choosing one of the less-desirable paths. Exploiting all available information about potential imperfection in your opponent's play, for example inferring that your opponent might be too greedy and deliberately playing a slightly weaker line than usual on the grounds that it has a greater potential to tempt your opponent into making a mistake. Now let’s try to understand which side is stronger in a certain position. Is there a perfect algorithm for chess? Maybe it's for Black to always win. But chess games are (technically) finite. This can be made more and more complicated, taking into account of many values such as individual pieces, board position, control of the center, vulnerability of the king to check, vulnerability of the opponent’s queen, and tons of other parameters. This implies that no matter what Black does, there is a strategy White can follow to win. So, there's less than ten to the power of one hundred moves in chess. After doing the analysis, now it is time to make the decision, this is the example of simplified tree. Mathematically, chess has been solved by the Minimax algorithm, which goes back to the 1920s (either found by Borel or von Neumann). You've gained 30 rep and only lost 1. Huge, but finite. Again, the endgame in question is avoidable though. For example, if black would always loose if white plays perfect, it's possible that black wins, if white plays just one single suboptimal move. ack! The number of moves is a lot higher. It will be done! I argued that there could not exist a deterministic Turing machine that always won or stalemated at chess. It can be done, but can it be done on a computer we are likely to ever see? Most chess computers try to match a possible end game to the game in progress, which is essentially a dynamic programming traceback. +1: excellent topic. Also, things change because pieces can move in any direction, not just forwards and backwards. There's only 10 to the power of fifty possible combinations of pieces on the board. Yes, you can solve chess, no, you won't any time soon. Other than time constraints is there anything to stop a human from going through the same steps (perhaps with a calculator) that the computer algorithm did if they had lots of paper? There are excellent reasons to think this is impossible before the heat death of the Universe. Since all games end in a finite number of moves there exists such a bound, call it m. Starting from the initial state, can't you enumerate all n moves in O(m) space? To achieve this, however, you must know precisely every possible move and reaction and so forth, all the way through to each and every single possible game outcome, and to visualize this, or to make an easy way of analyising this information, think of it as a mind map that branches out constantly. For all lovers board games such as Sudoku, Chess with Friends, Domino, Backgammon Free, Bingo Party, Ludo King, Checkers and Mahjong Titan is our game Chess Free best choise for play! The total number of chess games is approximately 10^(10^50). Could double jeopardy protect a murderer who bribed the judge and jury to be declared not guilty? (Define "win" as "reach your specified position" instead of a traditional checkmate.) It is about checkers, but it could apply to chess. Say these “child” nodes branch off into “grandchild” nodes (Level 2). 2) Solving the game does NOT imply that their exists a failsafe strategy. That is, there is no choice of moves that one player can make which force the other player into losing. So, the quick answer is: If humanity survives long enough, it's just a matter of time! Recently, Connect 4 has been solved as well (and shown to be unfair to the second player, since a perfect play will cause him to lose). I can't believe I never thought of that! The maximum number of half moves is (118-3)*100 + 3*99 = 11797. @Philip: Processor clock speeds of desktop computers have increased only slightly since 2003, and enhancements since then have mostly been increased cache and multiple cores. Almost certain wins - for "good enough" play without any foolish mistakes (say about ELO 2200+?) One of the earliest approaches, which learned solely by playing itself, is Samuel's famous checker player program [10]. Demo •Demo: ChessBase with chess engine Deep Rybka 4, Houdini 1.5 and Fritz 13 17 . Even at this speed, it would still take 100 of these computers approximately 6.34 x 10^19 years to solve chess. many chess positions are almost certain wins, for example a decent material advantage (e.g. most likely to win. Chess is a two-player strategy board game played on checkered board with 64 squares arranged in an 8x8 grid. It is also used in other two player turn-based games such as Tic-Tac-Toe, Backgammon, and Mancala. In a chess match, the beginnings are often the most critical part of the game as they decide the tone and manner of how the further stages of the game will develop. See tablebase and bitbase here: Scripted to win is one thing. The real and sufficient computers will build up this tree to the best of their hardware capabilites, like 5, or 10, or 20 or whatever moves into the future. Projecting exponential increase for fifty years when it started breaking down seven years ago doesn't seem like a safe bet. Algorithms, . From game theory, which is what this question is about, the answer is yes Chess can be played perfectly. It is pretty obvious, but what I want to explain here is how chess algorithm works in mathematics side. I'm not mathematician and not a very good chess-player; I also assumed that in theory (should the entire game tree be known) that the answer to this is 'yes'. I found this article by John MacQuarrie that references work by the "father of game theory" Ernst Friedrich Ferdinand Zermelo. For some moves of the opponent our last move might have been sub-optimal. So does board positions and piece combinations. How was I able to access the 14th positional parameter using $14 in a shell script? Also, take into account $1000 in 45 years will be worth about 4 times less than it is now, so much more money can go into projects such as this while computational power will continue to get cheaper. Then the researchers let the program run, on an average of 50 computers daily. Playing white, it thinks and thinks and thinks and then.... resigns! Is there anything wrong in it? I'm not sure if the same could be done for chess. your coworkers to find and share information. The computer that plays as the white, has to decide it’s move. Deep Blue chess algorithm. Stack Overflow for Teams is a private, secure spot for you and But as an ex-master and an ex-professional chess programmer, I thought I could add a few useful facts and figures. Yes there is. Can a client-side outbound TCP port be reused concurrently for multiple destinations? @RoadWarrior: disagree. Optimal usually means maximising the, Actually, the quote is right. To make a computer recognize the most optimal move to take out of the (at most) 8 instantly possible moves, would be possible, but not plausable... as that computer would need to be able to process all the branches past that move, all the way to a conclusion, count all conclusions that result in a win or a stalemate, then act on that number of wining conclusions against losing conclusions, and that would require RAM capable of processing data in the Terrabytes, or more!