KroppMorrill739: Created page with 'If all know-how about chess may be accumulated and unified in one theory... how exciting is the fact that? Everyone wishes to understand that "final" theory. And, with all the po…'

2012-04-13T18:36:58Z

Created page with 'If all know-how about chess may be accumulated and unified in one theory... how exciting is the fact that? Everyone wishes to understand that "final" theory. And, with all the po…'

New page

If all know-how about chess may be accumulated and unified in one theory... how exciting is the fact that? Everyone wishes to understand that "final" theory. And, with all the possession of that knowledge, beat everyone in chess. Who could beat you? There is an final theory all things considered.

Unhealthy news: currently, no such theory exists. It is doubtful there ever will be. However, there is one book published by Gary Danelishen whose book title suggests itself: "The Final Theory of Chess". It discusses exactly a possible fix for your problem. What's the solution to that seemingly eternally evasive question, "What is the best move around in the globe?"

But can there be really such a thing since the best move around in the entire world? I doubt it. To begin with, now you ask too broad. There has to be another condition that would restrict this broadness to some extent of specificity. This can be done by stating the question using this method: "What is the greatest move in this position?" Here, we added a new parameter--by being more specific (i.e. "in this position"), we added a brand new dimension by which we could measure another.

We often be employed in linear [http://www.ajedrezvip.com ajedrez] reasoning: "If such a thing happens, then that happens." Unfortunately, if it is the reasoning through which you choose to work out a difficulty, a mathematical problem as well, then, if you're asked a fix, you will only reach your goals in concluding that the reply to now you ask infinity. "If such a thing happens, then that occurs. And if that happens, then that particular happens, then that, then that..." ad infinitum.

So what exactly is the best thing to complete? Add another parameter. Before asking, "What is the foremost move in this position?" ask, "What position must i desire to achieve?" Quite simply, answer the question backwards.

"This may be the position I want to achieve, thus select this move." By understanding what to accomplish, you are more likely to go in that direction. This logic can provide an impression of vagueness to the mathematically exacting, but this is the wrong impression. In reality, it even increases the decision-maker a sense of concreteness. By providing an absolute goal, it's possible to calculate a finite sequence of moves, even if the chess player's assessment of 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. The place that the subject of data is involved, this the fact is evident. One clear evidence of this simple truth is this: perhaps the strongest players don't depend upon pure calculation. The present world chess champion, [http://www.ajedrezvip.com ajedrez en linea] Viswanathan Anand, is really an "intuitive" rather than "calculating" player. And are generally a lot of chess legends ever sold as well as other quite strong modern chess players.

So what creates this change all say? In his book, Danelishen writes,

The ultimate Theory of Chess is definitely an attempt to lay a good foundation on which further analysis could be internal order to achieve the very first goal of an partial strategy to the overall game of chess. Between mid 2004 and 2008, daily computer analysis was conducted and also the Final Theory of Chess slowly was written. During this time period, a network of six computers running the Fritz group of computer chess programs continuously calculated night and day. Each previous round of analysis laid a foundation upon which future analysis was conducted..."

However, this might take a long time. The strategy is way too slow (compared to human lifespan). Why?

Well, principle assumptions are:

1. On the board position, there are 40 legal moves on average;
2. A sport of chess takes about 30 half-moves (60 plys or 60 "half-moves") an average of.

Therefore there are approximately 40^60 (40 for the 60th power or 40 multiplied 60 times by itself), which can be about 10^96 possible ending positions that the computer has to check.

If your computer can perform evaluating 10^18 ending positions another (current computers aren't even near being effective at that), then 10^96 positions divided by 10^18 positions a second could 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 called "brute-force calculation") is really a practical impossibility. I deem it more [http://www.ajedrezvip.com jugar ajedrez] tenable to keep that "the final theory of chess are these claims: there isn't any such thing as final theory of chess." Why? Since the "final" theory that would explain away chess may not be a theory in the end but an objective truth.

User:KroppMorrill739 - Revision history

KroppMorrill739: Created page with 'If all know-how about chess may be accumulated and unified in one theory... how exciting is the fact that? Everyone wishes to understand that "final" theory. And, with all the po…'