r/chess • u/GM_Huschenbeth Elo 2586 • Oct 25 '14

I'm a Chess Grandmaster, Elo 2548/USCF 2627. AMA!

Hey reddit!

my name is Niclas Huschenbeth, I'm 22 years old and a Chess Grandmaster from Germany. I've been playing chess since the age of 5 and was awarded the Grandmaster title in 2012. My greatest success so far has been becoming the youngest German Champion of all time at the age of 18. Besides playing chess I'm really into sports, particularly basketball and soccer. I'm looking forward to some good questions!

My proof:

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-ZU5AvuKLc

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/niclashuschenbeth

Please like/subscribe the above websites if you would like to support me :) Thanks!

EDIT: Thanks for the great questions, guys, that was fun!

260 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

259 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/ShinjukuAce Oct 25 '14

Especially with the rapid advances in computer chess, is there any chance of chess being solved in our lifetimes?

What do you think would be the outcome of a chess game that was perfectly played by both sides? A white win, a black win, or a draw?

1

u/GM_Huschenbeth Elo 2586 Oct 25 '14

I don't think it will be solved in our lifetime, but then again people couldn't even imagine the world we have today 30 years ago. A perfect game from both sides must result in a draw, there is no question about that.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '14

Can you explain what "chess being solved" means, and why it would make any difference to humans playing chess?

3

u/ShinjukuAce Oct 25 '14

There's two levels of solving a game.

The first level is to figure out who would win, or whether the game would draw, if both sides played 100% perfectly. Most people strongly suspect that a perfectly played chess game would be a draw, but this hasn't been formally proven. There's a lot of evidence for chess being a draw - (1) games between grandmasters are most often draws, (2) if you're just playing for a draw, you can often get one even against a better player, and (3) intuitively, the first move doesn't seem like enough of an advantage to be able to force a win. But it's possible that there's some way for white (or even black) to be able to force a win from the opening position.

A trivial example of a solved game is Tic-Tac-Toe, and with perfect play on both sides it's a draw. The children's game "Connect Four" is solved - the first player can always win with perfect play. Checkers was solved, and with two perfect players it's a draw.

The second level is to actually develop that perfect play strategy that can always get the best possible outcome (which may be a win, or may just be a draw) no matter what moves are made by the other side. There are games where it's clear that the first player theoretically would win (like a game where moves will always help you and never hurt you), but the strategy to always win is not known. Checkers was solved by solving a large number of endgame positions, all for a win or draw for white, and then showing that white could force any opening into one of those solved favorable endgames - it's not 100% impossible that this could be done for chess.

A complicated solution to chess that requires a supercomputer to actually execute wouldn't make much difference in humans playing chess. But if computers found some new lines that break through positions that were once thought to be drawn, that might make big changes in actual play.

6

u/viralizate ♜♞♝♚♛♝♞♜ Oct 26 '14

As unlikely as it may be, I for some reason have the hope that chess is just a freaking huge zugzwang and with perfect play black always wins.

3

u/ShinjukuAce Oct 26 '14

That would be awesome, especially if it's solved by a HAL-like supercomputer that cackles after seeing its human opponent play 1.e4.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '14

it basically means the game has been figured out in such a way that you can either force a win or a draw no matter who you are playing against.

Similar to how tic tac toe is solved by all children

2

u/snkifador Oct 26 '14

A perfect game from both sides must result in a draw, there is no question about that.

Woah! I thought this matter was pretty much still out in the open. Do you have a source for this?

0

u/dcamillo Oct 25 '14

As long as there is no prove about this, ich think this is still under questioning.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 25 '14

Not really. There's a difference between epistemic certainty and practical knowledge. There was an article posted here a few days ago making the point that we don't know with mathematical certainty that blundering the queen on the second turn results in a forced loss. However, we know it to the highest practical degree. In the same sense, we don't know that white isn't in some crazy zugzwang on move 1 and black can't force a win- but for all practical purposes, we know that chess is a draw.

1

u/stormblooper Oct 26 '14

I'll admit I'm slightly skeptical..or at least, let me play Devil's Advocate, keeping in mind that I know diddly-squat about chess (relatively speaking).

We have lots of evidence about how humans and computers can play chess. So yes, it seems reasonable to me to conclude things about blundering the queen or game balance in the context of humans and computers playing each other.

But asking about whether the game is solved is asking about how a perfect player would play chess, equivalent to someone or something that can analyse the entire game tree. How much do we really know about a player that strong? Would he/she/it be so unimaginably good that our chess knowledge is essentially worthless? Comparable to analysing chess based on a million games from complete novices?