Now I want to write a Sci-Fi short story about this involving the death of our sun.
+1
I tell students that if two kings ever stand next to each other on the chessboard, the universe will begin to unravel. They don't yet know that the universe has been unraveling since the Big Bang. Nor do many of them know about the creator twins, as most have been raised in a much more recent tradition.
The whole business with centaur chess is nearly pathetic - "Oh machines have gotten better than people, but people must still be useful for machines". The programming hasn't yet eliminated centaur chess. Houdini still plays endings pretty badly because the fundamental game tree concept doesn't work as well as planning to achieve easily described goals. On the other hand, I could spend a few months and write say a "bishop + pawns vs bishop + pawns" endgame engine that would destroy Houdini and J.R. Capablanca.
In 10 years, Centaur chess will seem quaint.
The best Centaurs are probably 100 to 150 points stronger than the strongest chess engines. That is my guess. The strongest chess engines are quite a bit stronger than the strongest human.
I am currently experimenting with a kind of centaur chess in another thread.
The standard formulation of P vs NP is either (1) P is the class of problems that can be solved in polynomial time on a deterministic Turing machine (roughly, an idealized computer that runs its program serially, one step after the other), while NP is the class of problems that can be solved in polynomial time on a non-deterministic Turing machine (roughly, an idealized computer that can run various parts of its program in parallel); (2) P is the class of problems that can be solved in polynomial time on a deterministic machine, while NP is the class of problems such that solutions can be verified in polynomial time on a deterministic Turing machine. These are actually equivalent formulations, which is not obvious at first glance.
Irontiger is correct in saying that a problem being in NP doesn't mean that it's not in P. P is a subset of NP, but it's not known whether it's a proper subset or not (i.e., not known whether there are some problems in NP that aren't in P), which is what the whole P=NP question is about.
It's not true that nobody seriously believes that P=NP could be true. The wikipedia article on P vs NP states that in a poll of 100 researchers in 2002, 9 believed that P=NP will turn out to be true. I'm quite surprised that there were that many, but the article above gives some opinions of researchers on why they are less confident than others that P!=NP.
tl;dr: the P=NP problem is the question of whether solvable problems of a certain difficulty which we can "quickly" verify the answer to can also always be solved quickly in principle (even if we can't figure out how to do so). Most experts believe that P does not equal NP, but some believe they are equal. Scott Aronson has a nice friendly blog overview of the P vs. NP problem.
Thanks. I actually did need a refersher on Computational Complexity Theory.
It is my guess that unfortuately and eventually correspondence chess [I mean chess engines allowed] will die out. This is because centaurs have already gotten so strong that it is said White or Black can make sure their game is a draw. [this at the highest levels]
I am guessing maybe 10 years left. Right now a lot of people are saying rather unkind words about correspondence chess. There are probably thousands of correspondence players who still enjoy this type of chess.
They are not to the level of being able to force a draw with either Black or White. But they are at a level where they enjoy the type of chess they are playing and please let them enjoy correspondence chess while it lasts?
This is just slightly off subject of can chess be solved but in Centaur Chess, for all practical purposes chess is solved in that they can force a draw but not a win. [this is not math proof]
It is my understanding that to completely transverse the game tree could not be done in the next many billions of years and our sun will explode and the stars turned to dust and still no complete transverse of the game tree.
Am I correct or not? Is a 32 piece table base in our future?
Yes and all that is left is a gold chess set perched on a tree branch.
The good things is chess is a draw or a win is only on predictions only atm. I don't see any valid arguments that back them up. All the arguments are invalid atm, including statistics and computers.
bean-Fisher There are some people who do not "see" the arguments which indicate chess is a draw. But because you do not see them does not make them invalid.
It is easy to say that all arguments are invalid. Please exlain why you think all arguments are invalid?
bean_Fischer is clearly cut from the same cloth as those who deny climate change and biological science. Or, by restating their position (evidence is irrelevant), he is mocking them.
manfredmann you are putting down possibly thousands of players who are hurting no one and enjoy that type of chess.
It is not just you as many go out of their way to show contempt for these players. What is the point--as I said they are not hurting anybody?
Because it's not a fact?
The seasonal variations of the extent of Arctic ice do not alter the fact that its total mass continues to decrease. You won't get science from the Daily Mail; you'll get misunderstanding.
manfredmann, about that "consensus" and the 97% number:
"Here’s the genesis of the lie. When you take a result of 32.6% of all papers that accept AGW, ignoring the 66% that don’t, and twist that into 97%, excluding any mention of that original value in your media reports, there’s nothing else to call it – a lie of presidential proportions."
So, who's the ignorant slut now?
The Arctic icecap, which is 2% of the world's ice, is melting. The Antarctic cap, which is 90%, is actually growing and close to record size. Of course the "climate change" propagandists never mention that little fact. Sorry to debunk your end-of-the-world scenario.
They don't mention this red herring because, ... well, because they are scientists who understand the difference between breadth and depth and volume.
But, they do mention it because lies must be refuted and misunderstandings corrected. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-recovered.htm
Give it up, gullible "climate change" dupes. Even the Met Office has finally admitted there's been no "global warming" for 17 years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436710/Met-office-proof-global-warming-pause-climate-summit-confirms-global-temperature-stopped-rising.html
Haha! No global warming? Shit! We're all gonna' freeze!
Suggestion if you really want a good discussion on a subject such a Global Warmings--there is a special format for this and you will find opinions backed up by facts.
I heard a while ago that it is physically impossible for chess to be solved because there is not enough room in the universe to store that amount of data (ie. because there are more possibilities than the number of atoms in the universe), I was somewhat skeptical of this idea but I would like to hear other's opinions on it.
Having said that I would not be at all surpised if many of the major variations are completely solved within 50 years.
The universe could actually store the data. It is even possible with recent breakthroughs in storage technology that the data could be squeezed into the solar system.
Harvard researchers managed to store 5.5 petabytes (~700 terabytes) in a single gram of DNA.
Once the data is generated and stored in the solar system, we need only sequence the solar system's DNA to retrieve it.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134672-harvard-cracks-dna-storage-crams-700-terabytes-of-data-into-a-single-gram
When RAM is measured in yottabytes, we'll be on the cusp of success.
...and if you want a discussion about whether or not chess will ever be "solved," there are several forum threads on that topic as well.
GM's already have something better than computer programmers.
On a slightly different subject it seems now in Centaur Chess if either side [White or Black] wants a draw they can get the draw.