Answers.Body: <p>The two current strongest chess engines are Rybka 3 and Stockfish 5. An 8-game match was played between those two engines a month ago. Rybka 3 lost +0 =5 -3. Ofcourse, it all also heavily depends on how strong the chess engine is by itself, but I would hypothesise that if we were to take two absolutely equal engines in strengths, then the majority of games played would be draws, although wins could also be possible (specifically for the side playing white), since white has an extra tempo, which can be masterfully utilised by the engine. </p>
  
  <p>You can find the match on YouTube, here's a link to the first <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5EuoSfQWy4" rel="nofollow">game.</a></p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-08-17T10:46:30.200Z
Answers.Text: Interesting this approach "Two equal strength engines majority of games will draw". can this hypothesis be used to prove that two absolute strength engine always draw?
Answers.UserDisplayName: albanx
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-08-17T10:49:48.600Z
Answers.Text: A few days ago I downloaded Stockfish 5 and out of pure curiosity I let it play against itself for 5 games. All 5 ended in a draw due to material insufficiency or draw end games. I don't know if that might be a coincidence, but I personally would imagine it to be logical that two same engines would play a very drawish and equal game against each other.
Answers.UserDisplayName: vs97
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-08-17T10:54:39.147Z
Answers.Text: Answering your question, I would say **yes**.
Answers.UserDisplayName: vs97
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-08-28T01:59:23.790Z
Answers.Text: Rybka 3 the strongest????
Answers.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-08-17T10:41:43.230Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-08-17T10:41:43.230Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: vs97
Answers.Body: <p>"Powerful computer" is a relative term. Different chess engines use different algorithms and strategies to weigh what would be considered the best moves in a given position, but no computer or chess program is able to calculate all the possible moves in a chess game in advance, except for when there's only a few pieces left on the board.</p>
  
  <p>If you mean who would win when two perfect chess programs with unlimited computing power go head to head: noone knows the answer, since chess still hasn't been "solved". I'd assume the most likely outcome would be a draw though.</p>
  
  <p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/gBHA5.jpg" alt="This is an image, not a signature, newbs."></p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-08-27T23:10:49.750Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-09-22T07:10:58.317Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2014-09-22T07:10:58.317Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: swift
Answers.Body: <p>The answer to "who wins between two perfect computers" depends on whether White or Black wins (or draws) with perfect play from both sides.</p>
  
  <p><a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/q/2778/1201">No one knows the answer to this question.</a> If we did, Chess would be considered to be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game" rel="nofollow noreferrer">solved</a>. That is, we would be able to define "perfect play". However, Chess is not generally considered likely to be solved anytime soon: the number of possible positions is simply far too great to even represent on any current machinery. If you could somehow store the correct move for any given position in a <em>single bit</em> (which you can't), you'd still need (approximately)...</p>
  
  <pre><code>1,250,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>...<strong>PETABYTES</strong> of storage space just to hold the tablebase. Obviously, this is so far beyond our current technical capabilities that it is, for the moment, impossible.</p>
  
  <p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solving_chess#Predictions_on_when.2Fif_chess_will_be_solved" rel="nofollow noreferrer">See here for more</a> (with further links to a small fraction of the huge amount of research that exists on the topic).</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-08-14T18:57:27.357Z
Answers.Text: I play chess often, and also I am a developer. Probably the chess game is NP problem or EXP. I was curios if there was any proven theorem about this.
Answers.UserDisplayName: albanx
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-08-14T19:14:03.787Z
Answers.Text: Chess is EXP, probably. The DS explains it. I think that quantum computers will help us solve chess in about 100 years, but let us better wait.
Answers.UserDisplayName: MikhailTal
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-08-14T19:14:21.723Z
Answers.Text: @albanx There is a vast amount of research on the topic, much more than would be appropriate to put in an answer on this site. As implied by my answer, the problem is certainly solvable in [exponential space](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EXPSPACE), and not proven (to my knowledge) to be solvable in any lesser categorization.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Henry Keiter
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-08-14T19:21:04.977Z
Answers.Text: Such and old game and such a complex one. If chess is EXP probably even quantum computer will not help to solve it. As far as I remember quantum computer will help to solve some NP problems.
Answers.UserDisplayName: albanx
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-08-18T22:32:31.340Z
Answers.Text: Actually, the game would then be considered ultra-weakly solved, which is the weakest notion of a solution, and still we're far away from an idea how to answer it.
Answers.UserDisplayName: chaosflaws
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2014-08-14T16:49:00.643Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2014-08-14T16:49:00.643Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2017-04-13T12:48:53.193Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Henry Keiter
Body: <p>If we suppose to have 2 powerful computer, that are able to calculate all moves in some seconds, who will win, the black or the white? Or the game will always be draw? (let say we have a unlimited number of moves in this case)
  Does the winner in this case depend from the strategy?
  We now chess game is very complex having 8x8 board with 32 peices. </p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-08-14T16:52:49.863Z
Comments.Text: possible duplicate of [Will computer knowledge reach a perfect game, after expanding prepared openings/endgames?](http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/2778/will-computer-knowledge-reach-a-perfect-game-after-expanding-prepared-openings)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Henry Keiter
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-08-28T08:54:12.440Z
Comments.Text: not it is not a duplicate
Comments.UserDisplayName: albanx
Tags: <theory><software>
Title: Who is the winner between two powerful computer opponents?
ThreadText: # Who is the winner between two powerful computer opponents?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2014-08-14)
  
  If we suppose to have 2 powerful computer, that are able to calculate all moves in some seconds, who will win, the black or the white? Or the game will always be draw? (let say we have a unlimited number of moves in this case)
  Does the winner in this case depend from the strategy?
  We now chess game is very complex having 8x8 board with 32 peices.
  
  **Tags:** theory, software
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: possible duplicate of [Will computer knowledge reach a perfect game, after expanding prepared openings/endgames?](http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/2778/will-computer-knowledge-reach-a-perfect-game-after-expanding-prepared-openings)  
  > **username_0**: not it is not a duplicate  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2014-08-14. Score: 6 | Accepted answer
  
  The answer to "who wins between two perfect computers" depends on whether White or Black wins (or draws) with perfect play from both sides.
  No one knows the answer to this question. If we did, Chess would be considered to be solved. That is, we would be able to define "perfect play". However, Chess is not generally considered likely to be solved anytime soon: the number of possible positions is simply far too great to even represent on any current machinery. If you could somehow store the correct move for any given position in a single bit (which you can't), you'd still need (approximately)...
  1,250,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
  
  ...PETABYTES of storage space just to hold the tablebase. Obviously, this is so far beyond our current technical capabilities that it is, for the moment, impossible.
  See here for more (with further links to a small fraction of the huge amount of research that exists on the topic).
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: I play chess often, and also I am a developer. Probably the chess game is NP problem or EXP. I was curios if there was any proven theorem about this.  
  > **username_5**: Chess is EXP, probably. The DS explains it. I think that quantum computers will help us solve chess in about 100 years, but let us better wait.  
  > **username_1**: @username_0 There is a vast amount of research on the topic, much more than would be appropriate to put in an answer on this site. As implied by my answer, the problem is certainly solvable in [exponential space](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EXPSPACE), and not proven (to my knowledge) to be solvable in any lesser categorization.  
  > **username_0**: Such and old game and such a complex one. If chess is EXP probably even quantum computer will not help to solve it. As far as I remember quantum computer will help to solve some NP problems.  
  > **username_6**: Actually, the game would then be considered ultra-weakly solved, which is the weakest notion of a solution, and still we're far away from an idea how to answer it.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2014-08-17. Score: 0
  
  The two current strongest chess engines are Rybka 3 and Stockfish 5. An 8-game match was played between those two engines a month ago. Rybka 3 lost +0 =5 -3. Ofcourse, it all also heavily depends on how strong the chess engine is by itself, but I would hypothesise that if we were to take two absolutely equal engines in strengths, then the majority of games played would be draws, although wins could also be possible (specifically for the side playing white), since white has an extra tempo, which can be masterfully utilised by the engine.
  
  You can find the match on YouTube, here's a link to the first [game.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5EuoSfQWy4)
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Interesting this approach "Two equal strength engines majority of games will draw". can this hypothesis be used to prove that two absolute strength engine always draw?  
  > **username_2**: A few days ago I downloaded Stockfish 5 and out of pure curiosity I let it play against itself for 5 games. All 5 ended in a draw due to material insufficiency or draw end games. I don't know if that might be a coincidence, but I personally would imagine it to be logical that two same engines would play a very drawish and equal game against each other.  
  > **username_2**: Answering your question, I would say **yes**.  
  > **username_3**: Rybka 3 the strongest????  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2014-08-27. Score: -1
  
  "Powerful computer" is a relative term. Different chess engines use different algorithms and strategies to weigh what would be considered the best moves in a given position, but no computer or chess program is able to calculate all the possible moves in a chess game in advance, except for when there's only a few pieces left on the board.
  
  If you mean who would win when two perfect chess programs with unlimited computing power go head to head: noone knows the answer, since chess still hasn't been "solved". I'd assume the most likely outcome would be a draw though.
  
  ![This is an image, not a signature, newbs.](https://i.sstatic.net/gBHA5.jpg)
  
  
  ---
  
  