11–20 of 43 posts
(I'm sure in the general sense games with a very large n aren't as I suppose a game could be played in perpetuity)
The Pirc spike in the 1850s looks interesting visually, but keep in mind that your data set back then is incredibly small. Looking at my own database, the spike seems to be entirely due to some guy name Mahescandra playing it 57 times against Cochrane. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with the increasing popularity of 1.d4 40 years later. I've never heard of Mahescandra, but Cochrane is the guy the famous Coc…
I double-checked my data set to look into this, and you're right. Nearly all of the Pircs in that time period were done by a guy named Moheschunder Bannerjee: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moheschunder_Bannerjee He contributed to the development of the Indian Defence.
Out of curiosity, is chess solvable yet by computers? Meaning, is it possible to simply brute force every possible legal game up to n moves and determine all the winning and losing move sets? What's this number look like theoretically? (I'm sure in the general sense games with a very large n aren't as I suppose a game could be played in perpetuity)
Out of curiosity, is chess solvable yet by computers? Meaning, is it possible to simply brute force every possible legal game up to n moves and determine all the winning and losing move sets? What's this number look like theoretically? (I'm sure in the general sense games with a very large n aren't as I suppose a game could be played in perpetuity)
That's easily above 10^30 positions. 10^30 is a very low lower bound, too.
So, uh, no.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I double-checked my data set to look into this, and you're right. Nearly all of the Pircs in that time period were done by a guy named Moheschunder Bannerjee: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moheschunder_Bannerjee He contributed to the development of the Indian Defence.
Why do you all have your own datasets of historical chess moves? Is this a popular playground for data analysis, or is it something chess learners study?
Out of curiosity, is chess solvable yet by computers? Meaning, is it possible to simply brute force every possible legal game up to n moves and determine all the winning and losing move sets? What's this number look like theoretically? (I'm sure in the general sense games with a very large n aren't as I suppose a game could be played in perpetuity)
No, it is not yet possible to brute force all chess games. The largest extant endgame database has full solutions for seven pieces on the board. Once you get to that point, chess is solved. ;-)
So basically, my opening move would be classed as 'other' but really it is one of 1.d4, 1.e4, 1.c4 in terms of the classifications of this post.
Chess opening trends are like fashion--some high profile player(s), always on the search for new ideas, finds a resource in an unpopular line and suddenly it's all the rage. Everyone is playing it, working out the complications, finding ways to defend or neutralize the lines, then interest wanes until someone uncovers a fresh new plan somewhere else and the cycle repeats. Other times though, new resources aren't foun…
For example, the King's Gambit hasn't really fallen out of favor despite the lack of long grandmaster games. The Falkbeer Countergambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5) in particular has seen a revival as of late with the Nimzowitsch variation (3.exd5 c6!?). You might not see Carlsen and Anand playing it in tournament (mostly due to the risk-reward factor of having to solve complex positions over the board under time pressure), but they've almost certainly studied it with their team of coaches and researchers.
To comment on the Pirc: statistically, Black fares much worse with the Pirc in relationship to the most successful counter to 1.e4, the Sicilian defense (1...c5). From a gameplay perspective, Black has to commit much earlier with the Pirc than the Sicilian, since the Sicilian has about a billion variations starting as early as the second move.
Out of curiosity, is chess solvable yet by computers? Meaning, is it possible to simply brute force every possible legal game up to n moves and determine all the winning and losing move sets? What's this number look like theoretically? (I'm sure in the general sense games with a very large n aren't as I suppose a game could be played in perpetuity)
The analysis is interesting. However I'm not sure it has much practical value due to transpositions. For example, as white I play 1.Nf3 and if black plays d5 I play d4 and we have a d4 opening. If black plays c5 I play c4 and depending on what black does it will transpose into either an English opening (1. c4) or a maroczy sicilian (1. e4) or an indian defence (1. d4). So basically, my opening move would be classed a…
I think it'd be interesting to try to combine all possible paths for an opening into a single count, but that would probably be complicated if multiple openings can be reached through the same path. (e.g., which opening would the shared path be assigned to?)