IDEA: chess game

This is a discussion on IDEA: chess game within the Contests Board forums, part of the Community Boards category; Of course there is an outer limit to the universe...what...you think its infinite? lol...

  1. #16
    1.b4 e5 2.a3 d5 3.d4 exd
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    167
    Of course there is an outer limit to the universe...what...you think its infinite? lol
    AIM: MarderIII

  2. #17
    Grammar Police HybridM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    355
    If you think about the concept of infinity too long, your brain will actually explode.
    Thor's self help tip:
    Maybe a neighbor is tossing leaf clippings on your lawn, looking at your woman, or harboring desires regarding your longboat. You enslave his children, set his house on fire. He shall not bother you again.

    OS: Windows XP
    Compiler: MSVC

  3. #18
    Pursuing knowledge confuted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,916
    Regardless, the number of chess games possible is far fewer than the atoms in the universe...or even the atoms in the chess set.
    Away.

  4. #19
    Student Forever! bookworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    132
    I learnt C++ only till the console stage,never went on to VC++.
    In order to create GUI programs,I went to VB.net.
    I've always pleaded everyone in this site to broaden their perspective from C languages(though they rock) and Win32 apps. to other platforms like .net as well.
    I once thought of creating a chess game in C++.I went to Download.com for ideas,came across a console chess game.Everyone had simply fired it for creating something that should have been released ten years ago,so I gave up the idea.
    I would love to create a GUI game of chess in VB.net,though I feel it won't be very well accepted by all here.
    Last edited by bookworm; 06-23-2003 at 08:57 AM.

  5. #20
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    Originally posted by blackrat364
    Regardless, the number of chess games possible is far fewer than the atoms in the universe...or even the atoms in the chess set.
    The last part is not that sure. If I remember correctly, there are more than a trillion possible chess games.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  6. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    18
    Chess Can't be solved due to the first move (white and black) alnoe there are 400 possibilities then the next move there can be about another 400 and so on and so forth.


    Then the endgames could be solved using hash tables plus an opening book could be entered in to help the computer not think as much but I know for a fact chess can't be solved

    Look far enough out and the problem is finite but too big to be solved in the life of the universe. No computer (or human either) will ever look 20 plies out. If the computer can evaluate enough, though, and if it doesn't have any algorithmic weaknesses, then it will play a uniformly strong game throughout (where humans sometimes make questionable plays) and will be extremely difficult to beat. While the team at IBM were developing Deep Blue, they had the assistance of one of the top ten Chess players in the world, who would come and play against it. If he won, they would then analyze the game and see where the program had screwed up. Often this involved fine tuning the position-evaluation heuristic, for instance, to change the relative values of various things e.g. how much is a "passed pawn" worth on the sixth rank compared to the ability to place the enemy king in check or the potential to castle on Queen's side?
    The Chess Website where I found this out

    So this and many other statements prove chess can't be solved
    I need MONEY more than help with My C++ so yeah you get the idea

    C notes preferably LOL

  7. #22
    Pursuing knowledge confuted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,916
    No. You are wrong. It can be solved - just not with any computers that we have. Read the posts above this. There are a finite number of games, even though the number is huge.
    Away.

  8. #23
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    Perhaps a quantum computer will be able to analyze all possible moves in a single instruction?
    Now, that would be hard to beat.
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

  9. #24
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    No, it would not. Not in a single instruction anyway.
    A quantum computer would probably need far less instruction than a normal one, but a) probably still too many and b) you can't extract the final data because of quantum laws. And even if you could, you wouldn't have enough storage space for it.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  10. #25
    Crazy Fool Perspective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,640
    > And even if you could, you wouldn't have enough storage space for it.


    how can you say that??? 30 yrs ago some extremely intelligent people said "By the year 2000 there will be about 5 computers in the world each weighing around 3 tons" (not exact quotes). and a little later others said things like "8K of RAM is more than any computer should ever need" do you not see a pattern forming here? by saying there is not enough storage space, you are just falling into the same cycle over again. perhaps one day there will be enough processing power, RAM, HD space to solve something as complex as chess. I cant prove that there will be, but you most definately can not prove that there wont.

  11. #26
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    Quatum computers are really weird.
    They can crack 1024-bit encryption by testing all combinations at once. If they can do that, why not chess?
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

  12. #27
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    - They can crack 1024-bit encryption by testing all combinations at once.

    it does not work exactly that way. quantum computers are weird, but they still need more than one instruction to crack high-bit encryptions, and the amount of iterations still rises with larger bit counts.


    - how can you say that???

    i can say that because i know something about quantum physics and normal physics. even if you employ, say, 10 different particle properties you still need at least 1 particle for 10 bits of data. a single particle is subject to strange quantum effects, so this is hard to realize at best. but let us assume that we can do it.
    the smallest usable particle is the neutrino. again it is a very wide-stretched assumption that we can use neutrinos because of their properties.

    for the enormous amount of data of every single last chess game we would probably need several thousand trillion neutrinos, if not far more. each particle needs a minimum distance to the next if they are not to interfere with each other and destroy their data. even so, quantum effects related to heisenbergs principle - i do not know the english name - can and will still destroy the data of some particles every so often. the vast amount of particles we need means that such destruction happens far more often than the burning of a bulb at eniac. this means that it is not possible to store all the information - at least not enough to make any sense of it.
    if we used larger particles that are not subject to quantum effects, we would probably have to use all the planets of our solar system as data storage.

    so i am quite sure that we will never be able to store all moves of a chess game.



    and in case you are wondering why i am writing that strange, my shift and control keys broke and it is sunday.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  13. #28
    Crazy Fool Perspective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,640
    >> the smallest usable particle is the neutrino

    once again you are limiting your analysis to todays technology. perhaps we could use quarks, or maybe smaller particles that make up quarks. you never no how science and technology will evolve.

    btw: neutrino's travel near the speed of light, they would probably the last choice for a 'usable' particle.

  14. #29
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    A neutrino is smaller and far lighter than a quark.

    Very well, it might not be the smallest usable particle - but very nearly so (not much chance of anything having less mass, it already has nearly none). Maybe use bosons instead of fermions - you can stack as many as you want in one place. Only that they would influence each other too strongly then...
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  15. #30
    jasondoucette.com JasonD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    278
    Originally posted by PuhFENDanT
    The quote you posted: "No computer (or human either) will ever look 20 plies out."
    That's not true. I can let Crafty think overnight and it gets to 20 ply no problem on a 1.5 GHz system. Imagine what Deep Blue's hardware would do with Crafty's program. This will eventually be able to be performed in 3 minutes, the standard amount of time for each move in a chess tournament.

    blackrat364
    Regardless, the number of chess games possible is far fewer than the atoms in the universe...or even the atoms in the chess set.
    While it is true that the number of possible games is finite (for any particular set of rules - I think they have changed the 50-move rule to a 75-move rule due to the result of analyzed end game databases), the number of possible chess positions is very near, as much, or maybe even more than the number of atoms in the known universe (i.e. far greater than the number of atoms in a chess board), and therefore the number of possible games must far exceed this number by many orders of magnitude. I do not know if anyone has tried to come up with a number of possible games. I guess since the number of possible positions is good enough (i.e. end game databases store the score of the position, you can you find yourself which move is the best to win from all possible positions [and their scores] from this position), we do not really have to worry about it.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. C Programming 2d Array Question
    By jeev2005 in forum C Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-26-2006, 03:18 PM
  2. craps game & dice game..
    By cgurl05 in forum C Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-25-2006, 06:58 PM
  3. Help with A Chess game
    By Dan911 in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-28-2005, 08:39 AM
  4. Game Designer vs Game Programmer
    By the dead tree in forum Game Programming
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-28-2005, 09:17 PM
  5. Ultra chess engine contest
    By yodacpp in forum Projects and Job Recruitment
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-21-2004, 06:58 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21