The Instigator
mongoose
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points
The Contender
daboss
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
mongoose
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2009 Category: Technology
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,581 times Debate No: 8167
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (8)

 

mongoose

Pro

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.
daboss

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 1
mongoose

Pro

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.
daboss

Con

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
Debate Round No. 2
mongoose

Pro

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.
daboss

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 3
mongoose

Pro

"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.
daboss

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sampatrik 7 years ago
sampatrik
nice post dear

http://www.chessboss.com...
Posted by sampatrik 7 years ago
sampatrik
Hi, you made very good effort to make this knowledge full post, your post provide me some great information about the topic above written. You keep all things around a central topic this increase my interest , you did amazing work .

chess games
Posted by sampatrik 7 years ago
sampatrik
Hi, you made very good effort to make this knowledge full post, your post provide me some great information about the topic above written. You keep all things around a central topic this increase my interest , you did amazing work .

chess games
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
_|_|X
_|O|_
X|_|_

Your forgetting something... if they are idiots, they might not be intelligent enough to finish the game, and neither would lose
Posted by mongoose 8 years ago
mongoose
Its whether or not it could be possible to create an unbeatable computer, if it at least got the option of white or black. If two idiots play, one would very easily lose.

"I can't say whether or not chess is such a game though."
It is.

_l_lX
_lOl_
_l_l
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
excellent point, baggins. A lot of these debate titles have been lacking as of recent haven't they...
Posted by baggins 8 years ago
baggins
What is the meaning of the topic?

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

Even if two complete idiots play, one player would never lose!
Posted by Nail_Bat 8 years ago
Nail_Bat
Well, if you had the luxury of infinite memory and processing speed, all you'd have to do is make a giant graph of all possible moves and eliminate every branch that leads to your player losing. Simple! All it would take is a radical change in our understanding of physics.

Even this doesn't guarantee a win though. Its easy to devise a simple two player game, in which the only variable is the moves the players make (no dice or other such instruments of luck) for which there is no foolproof way to win. I can't say whether or not chess is such a game though.
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
OK I just a bunch of tic tac toes out and I don't know if I was full of SH(* or If I just forgot how to win everytime but I can't seem to do it. I'll continue with the game in good faith though
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
_|_|X
_|_|_
| |

Who won' tess' me... COMON!!
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
mongoosedabossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
mongoosedabossTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
mongoosedabossTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
mongoosedabossTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by sorc 8 years ago
sorc
mongoosedabossTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by mongoose 8 years ago
mongoose
mongoosedabossTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
mongoosedabossTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by daboss 8 years ago
daboss
mongoosedabossTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07