BagleyJohnston264

De MobileCells

If all knowledge about chess can be accumulated and unified in one theory... how exciting is always that? Everyone would like to know that "final" theory. And, with all the possessing that knowledge, beat everyone in chess. Who could beat you? There is a final theory in the end.

The not so good news: currently, no such theory exists. It is doubtful there ever is going to be. However, there is one book authored by Gary Danelishen whose book title suggests itself: "The Final Theory of Chess". The ebook discusses exactly a prospective fix for your problem. What is the reply to that seemingly eternally evasive question, "What is the foremost relocate the world?"

But can there be really such a thing because best move in the entire world? I doubt it. To begin with, absolutely suit way too broad. There must be another condition that would restrict this broadness to a certain degree of specificity. They can do this by stating the question using this method: "What is the best relocate this position?" Here, we added a whole new parameter--by being more specific (i.e. "in this position"), we added a new dimension where we could measure another.

We quite often work in linear ajedrez reasoning: "If this happens, then that happens." Unfortunately, if it is the reasoning through which you choose to work out a challenge, even a mathematical problem during this, then, in case you are asked a solution, you'll flourish in concluding the reply to now you ask , infinity. "If such things happen, then that occurs. And when you do, 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 greatest move in this situation?" ask, "What position should i desire to achieve?" In other words, answer the question backwards.

"This will be the position I want to achieve, i really opt for this move." By knowing what to do, you are apt to go in that direction. This logic may give an impression of vagueness towards the mathematically exacting, but this is a wrong impression. Actually, it even increases the decision-maker a sense of concreteness. Giving an obvious goal, you can calculate a finite sequence of moves, set up chess player's assessment from the position rests on subjective judgment.

Base knowledge takes precedence over calculation. One cannot calculate with no knowledge of the variables. One cannot calculate something he doesn't know. In which the subject of info is involved, this the fact is evident. One clear proof of this fact is this: even strongest players don't count on pure calculation. The present world chess champion, ajedrez en linea Viswanathan Anand, is actually an "intuitive" rather than a "calculating" player. And they are plenty of chess legends ever sold and other very strong modern chess players.

What exactly does this all say? As part of his book, Danelishen writes,

A final Theory of Chess is definitely an attempt to lay an excellent foundation on which further analysis could be integrated order to succeed in the initial goal of the partial treatment for the action of chess. Between mid 2004 and 2008, daily computer analysis was conducted along with the Final Theory of Chess slowly was written. During this time, a network of six computers running the Fritz class of computer chess programs continuously calculated around the clock. Each previous round of analysis laid the groundwork on which future analysis was conducted..."

However, this might take too much time. The strategy is just too big slow (in accordance with human lifespan). Why?

Well, principle assumptions are:

1. From the board position, you'll find 40 legal progresses average; 2. A casino game of chess takes about 30 half-moves (60 plys or 60 "half-moves") typically.

Therefore around 40^60 (40 on the 60th power or 40 multiplied 60 times by itself), which can be about 10^96 possible ending positions which the computer should check.

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

To obtain the "final" theory of chess by finding the strategy to all chess positions (in mathematics, this is known as "brute-force calculation") is really a practical impossibility. I deem it more jugar ajedrez tenable to keep that "the final theory of chess are these claims: there is absolutely no such thing as final theory of chess." Why? Since the "final" theory that would explain away chess would not be a theory after all but a target truth.