Given a strong enough computer, the game of chess can be solved so that one player can never lose.

The game of chess is solvable. Given enough data, a player, either white or black, I don't know which, would always be able to win or draw, despite the millions of possible combinations on the board. This also applies to other similar non-luck strategy games, including checkers, Khet, and Chinese Chess. I will continue my argument after my opponent responds.

Definitions:

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

solvable: susceptible of solution or of being solved, resolved, or explained (in this case, the solution is an extremely large set of strategies that can be applied to any situation possible on a chess board that can be reached by using previous strategies. I can explain further if asked.)

By win, I mean getting a checkmate, by draw, I mean resulting in a stalemate or draw, and by loss, I mean getting checkmated.

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

Before i start their isn't really anyway to debate this before i can clear things up so if pro you would answer these question

1)if your resolution has lose then why do you have the definition of win

2)and are we arguing chess or all the other games you named.

I will answer my opponent's questions.

"1)if your resolution has lose then why do you have the definition of win"

1. It doesn't hurt to throw in other semi-relevant definitions. After all, if you win, you clearly don't lose.

"2)and are we arguing chess or all the other games you named."

2. We are arguing chess. The other games were just examples of other solvable, non-luck strategy games. Which would include tic-tac-toe as well.

I await my opponent's response.

ARGUMENTS
1)Computer
What if you have two computers that are both very good at chess its going to go back and forth on who wins. It won't be a draw everytime that my opponent might try to state because the job of the computer is to win not to stall long enough so they have to draw they will keep going until they can absolutely win.

2)Make The Computer
to make this computer the person making this would have to able to win everytime becuase to make a computer to win a certain game you have to write an immense amount of code and so it won't always win unless the person writing the code always wins which i don't think anybody thus far has

Thank You

Now to respond to something.

"1)Computer
What if you have two computers that are both very good at chess its going to go back and forth on who wins. It won't be a draw everytime that my opponent might try to state because the job of the computer is to win not to stall long enough so they have to draw they will keep going until they can absolutely win."

The point is, neither would be able to win. If winning would be possible, it would either white would always win, or black would always win, which I already stated as "always winning" in the second sentence. There is a finite number of possible combinations for the pieces to be on a chess board. From each of these combinations, there is a finite number of moves. Thus, there is a finite amount of possible games that could be played.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com......

"2)Make The Computer
to make this computer the person making this would have to able to win everytime becuase to make a computer to win a certain game you have to write an immense amount of code and so it won't always win unless the person writing the code always wins which i don't think anybody thus far has"

Not really. It could be extensive knowledge, compacted into the computer. If a computer could get the data for every combination, then figure out how to get to all the optimal ones, and how to avoid all the ones that would end in defeat, it would be able to win.

http://www.odysseymagazine.com......

Do a Ctrl+F for "checkers" and you should find the article. Checkers has been solved, and clearly the people who made it didn't know every combination, they let the computer find that out. So why not chess? It would just take that much more data, but it is possible.

Thank you.

1)Computer
He tries to state that neither would be able to win but eventually given enough times one of them would beat the other.

2)Making the computer
He states it would have to have extensive knowledge compacted into the computer but that's my point exactly that would be a huge program first of all and second of all that would take a while to make and third of all the person making the program would have to know all this extensive knowledge... chess is alot more complex than checkers

Thank you.

"1)Computer
He tries to state that neither would be able to win but eventually given enough times one of them would beat the other."

Neither would be able to win if both knew everything about chess. It would always be in a draw. They would never lose to anyone, and would almost always win against others, because it could know what all the potential choices of its opponent are, and choose the move that leaves no counter. I never said it would be able to beat itself, just anything beneath itself. There is nothing above it.

"2)Making the computer
He states it would have to have extensive knowledge compacted into the computer but that's my point exactly that would be a huge program first of all and second of all that would take a while to make and third of all the person making the program would have to know all this extensive knowledge... chess is alot more complex than checkers"

Just because it would be a huge program doesn't mean it can't be done: hence the term, "given a strong enough computer". Time is not an issue. The person making the program would not have to know all of it. The people who made the checkers program didn't know all of it, yet they made a computer program that always wins. It's the same logic. How much more complex it is doesn't matter. Checkers is a lot more complex that tic-tac-toe, but it was still possible. Making a program to never lose tic-tac-toe is the same concept, but much more basic. It's the same type of game: No luck, all skill, the only difference between player A and player B is who goes first.

"Thank you."

Gracias.

1) "Neither would be able to win if both knew everything about chess. It would always be in a draw. They would never lose to anyone, and would almost always win against others, because it could know what all the potential choices of its opponent are, and choose the move that leaves no counter. I never said it would be able to beat itself, just anything beneath itself. There is nothing above it."

I'm saying if we made two of these computers and they faced eachother, one of them would win and one of them would lose. not it face itself.

2) "Just because it would be a huge program doesn't mean it can't be done: hence the term, "given a strong enough computer". Time is not an issue. The person making the program would not have to know all of it. The people who made the checkers program didn't know all of it, yet they made a computer program that always wins. It's the same logic. How much more complex it is doesn't matter. Checkers is a lot more complex that tic-tac-toe, but it was still possible. Making a program to never lose tic-tac-toe is the same concept, but much more basic. It's the same type of game: No luck, all skill, the only difference between player A and player B is who goes first."

Checkers is alot less complex than checkers like i said. You can make a way to beat checkers but because its clear to see all the moves you can make. in chess it is not the case you can only do a certain amout of moves and you have to understand each and every move you can make.

NEW ARGUMENT
He also states in the resolution strong enough computer... it doesn't matter how strong the computer is if it doesn't have a good enough program

with that i strongly urge a negative vote and Thank you for your time.