MerrickAbbate591

If all knowledge about chess could be accumulated and unified in a theory... how exciting is that? Everyone wishes to know that "final" theory. And, with all the possession of that knowledge, beat each one in chess. Who could beat you? You will find the final theory in fact.

The unhealthy news: currently, no such theory exists. It's doubtful there ever will likely be. However, there is one book authored by Gary Danelishen whose book title suggests itself: "The Final Theory of Chess". The book discusses exactly any solution to this problem. Is there a reply to that seemingly eternally evasive question, "What is the best relocate the world?"

But perhaps there is really such a thing because the best relocate the planet? I doubt it. To start with, the question is way too broad. There should be another condition that would restrict this broadness to a certain degree of specificity. You can do this by stating the question in this way: "What is the greatest move around in this position?" Here, we added a new parameter--by being more specific (i.e. "in this position"), we added a brand new dimension in which we can measure another.

We often are employed in linear ajedrez reasoning: "If this occurs, then that occurs." Unfortunately, if it is the reasoning through which you choose to work out an issue, a good mathematical problem as well, then, if you're asked a fix, you'll reach your goals in concluding that the solution to absolutely suit infinity. "If this occurs, then that takes place. And if that happens, then that certain 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 transfer this situation?" ask, "What position do I wish to achieve?" Put simply, answer the question backwards.

"This is the position I wish to achieve, therefore I opt for this move." By knowing what to do, one is more likely to go in that direction. This logic can provide the feeling of vagueness on the mathematically exacting, but this is a wrong impression. The truth is, it even provides the decision-maker a feeling of concreteness. By offering a definite goal, you can calculate a finite sequence of moves, whether or not the chess player's assessment in 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 location where the subject of information is involved, this simple truth is evident. One clear evidence this fact is this: even strongest players don't depend upon pure calculation. The existing world chess champion, ajedrez en linea Viswanathan Anand, is actually an "intuitive" rather than a "calculating" player. And they are a lot of chess legends in history as well as other very good modern chess players.

Precisely what does this all say? In their book, Danelishen writes,

The ultimate Theory of Chess is surely an make an effort to lay a solid foundation where further analysis might be internal order to achieve the 1st goal of the partial solution to the overall game of chess. Between mid 2004 and 2008, daily computer analysis was conducted as well as the Final Theory of Chess slowly was written. Do your best, a network of six computers running the Fritz category of computer chess programs continuously calculated night and day. Each previous round of analysis laid the groundwork upon which future analysis was conducted..."

However, this may take a long time. The strategy is just too slow (in accordance with human lifespan). Why?

Well, the essential assumptions are:

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

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

If the computer is capable of doing evaluating 10^18 ending positions another (current computers aren't even near to being able to that), then 10^96 positions divided by 10^18 positions an extra can be 10^78 seconds, or roughly 10^70 years.

To find the "final" theory of chess by locating the treatment for all chess positions (in mathematics, this is known as "brute-force calculation") can be a practical impossibility. I deem it more jugar ajedrez tenable to keep that "the final theory of chess is: there is absolutely no such thing as final theory of chess." Why? For the reason that "final" theory that will explain away chess couldn't survive a theory all things considered but goal truth.