If all knowledge of chess can be accumulated and combined into one theory … How exciting is that? Everyone wants to know what “final” theory. And with the possession of this knowledge, all beat at chess. Who would you fight? You have the latest theory, after all.
The bad news: No such theory. It is doubtful that he will ever be. However, there is a book by Gary Danelishen the book itself suggests the title “The Final Theory of Chess”. The book describes in detail a possible solution to this problem. What is the answer to this seemingly forever elusive, “What is the best train in the world?”
But is it really such a thing as the best train in the world? I doubt it. First, the question is simply too wide. There must be a different state, the width up to a certain degree of specificity would be limited. This can be the explanation of the question, to be done this way: “What is the best train in this position?” Here we have added a new parameter – by more specific (eg “this position”), we have a new dimension by which we can measure the other.
We often have to work in linear thinking, “If that happens, happens.” Unfortunately, if this is the argument that you are working on a problem, even a mathematical problem with that, then when you get a solution, you will conclude that the answer to the question of infinity. “If that happens, happens. And when that happens, when we arrive, so that when …” ad infinitum.
So what is the best thing you do? Add another parameter. , Before you ask: “What is the best train in this position?” ask, “What is the position I want to achieve?” In other words, answer the question in the reverse direction.
“This is the position I want to accomplish, so I’m going to this movement.” Knowing what to do, we are able to move in that direction. This logic may give an impression of vagueness in demanding mathematically, but it is a false impression. In fact, he gives himself the decision-makers, the practicality. By a particular target, one can calculate a finite sequence of movements, although the analysis is based of the chess player’s position on subjective judgments.
Knowledge base overrides the calculation. We can not be calculated without knowledge of the variables. We can not calculate what he does not know. If the object information is concerned, this truth is obvious. Clear evidence of this fact is not to leave even the strongest players on pure calculation. World Chess Champion today, Viswanathan Anand is actually an “intuitive” rather than “computing” player. And so are many legends in the history of chess and other chess players strong state.
What does this say? In his book, written Danelishen,
The latest theory of chess is an attempt to create a solid foundation on which to build further analysis, to achieve the first goal of a partial solution to chess can lay. Between mid 2004 and 2008, the daily computer analysis performed and the latest chess theory was written slowly. Meanwhile, a network of six computers that have built the family of Fritz computer chess programs continuously around the clock. Each previous round of analysis laid the foundation stone on which the analysis was carried out in the future … ”
This may take some time. The method is simply too slow (in comparison to the human life span). Why?
Well, the basic assumptions:
First Each position is a map there are 40 legal moves, on average;
Second A chess game is around 30 ply (60 times or 60 “ply”) on average.
So there are about 40 ^ 60 (40 to 60th power or 40 times 60 times multiplied by itself), ending about 10 ^ 96 positions as possible that the computer needs to be checked.