ClyburnPederson625

De Wikis en Educación

If all understanding of chess may be accumulated and unified within a theory... how exciting is the fact that? Everyone needs to realize that "final" theory. And, while using having that knowledge, beat everybody in chess. Who could beat you? You will find the final theory after all.

The not so good news: currently, no such theory exists. It really is doubtful there ever will probably be. However, there exists one book authored by Gary Danelishen whose book title suggests itself: "The Final Theory of Chess". The book discusses exactly a possible solution to this problem. What is the reply to that seemingly eternally evasive question, "What is the foremost relocate the globe?"

But perhaps there is really such a thing since the best relocate the world? I doubt it. In the first place, the question is simply too broad. There must be another condition that would restrict this broadness to a certain degree of specificity. This can be achieved by stating the question this way: "What is the best move around in it?" Here, we added a new parameter--by being more specific (i.e. "in this position"), we added a brand new dimension where we can measure another.

We sometimes be employed in linear ajedrez reasoning: "If this happens, then that takes place." Unfortunately, if it is the reasoning in which you choose to work out a difficulty, obviously any good mathematical problem during this, then, should you be asked an answer, you will simply achieve concluding how the response to absolutely suit infinity. "If this occurs, then that occurs. And when that happens, then that one happens, then that, then that..." ad infinitum.

So what exactly is a very important thing to do? Add another parameter. Before asking, "What is the best transfer this location?" ask, "What position will i need to achieve?" In other words, answer the question backwards.

"This may be the position I wish to achieve, therefore I go for this move." By knowing what to perform, one is more likely to use that direction. This logic may give an impression of vagueness towards the mathematically exacting, but this can be a wrong impression. In fact, it even increases the decision-maker a feeling of concreteness. By providing a certain goal, one can calculate a finite sequence of moves, get the job done chess player's assessment with the position rests on subjective judgment.

Base knowledge takes precedence over calculation. One cannot calculate lacking the knowledge of the variables. One cannot calculate something he doesn't know. In which the subject of info is involved, this facts are evident. One clear evidence of this simple truth is this: the strongest players don't count on pure calculation. The actual world chess champion, ajedrez en linea Viswanathan Anand, is actually an "intuitive" instead of a "calculating" player. And so are plenty of chess legends ever and other very strong modern chess players.

Just what exactly creates this change all say? In the book, Danelishen writes,

The last Theory of Chess is surely an attempt to lay a solid foundation upon which further analysis could possibly be built in order to succeed in the very first goal of an partial treatment for the game of chess. Between mid 2004 and 2008, daily computer analysis was conducted and also the Final Theory of Chess slowly was written. Do your best, a network of six computers running the Fritz group of computer chess programs continuously calculated 24 / 7. Each previous round of analysis laid the groundwork upon which future analysis was conducted..."

However, this could take too much time. The technique is just too big slow (compared to human lifespan). Why?

Well, the fundamental assumptions are:

1. From any board position, you can find 40 legal moves on average; 2. A sport of chess takes about 30 half-moves (60 plys or 60 "half-moves") typically.

Therefore around 40^60 (40 to the 60th power or 40 multiplied 60 times on it's own), that's about 10^96 possible ending positions that your computer needs to check.

If your computer can perform evaluating 10^18 ending positions a second (current computers aren't even all-around being effective at that), then 10^96 positions divided by 10^18 positions an extra would be 10^78 seconds, or roughly 10^70 years.

To find the "final" theory of chess by seeking the means to fix all chess positions (in mathematics, this is what's called "brute-force calculation") is a practical impossibility. I deem it more jugar ajedrez tenable to hold that "the final theory of chess is this: there is absolutely no such thing as final theory of chess." Why? Because the "final" theory that could explain away chess may not be a theory in fact but an objective truth.