Has racing kings been weakly solved? It seems highly likely that the result is a draw.
<Comment deleted by user>
@NNWill
Racing kings has not been solved yet as there is no forced win for either color. Stockfish on depth 22/22 white a +1.1 advantage to white, so to say that it is highly likely that the result is a draw is extremely dull-witted. Also racing kings isn't very popular so who cares if racing kings is solved or not.
Racing kings has not been solved yet as there is no forced win for either color. Stockfish on depth 22/22 white a +1.1 advantage to white, so to say that it is highly likely that the result is a draw is extremely dull-witted. Also racing kings isn't very popular so who cares if racing kings is solved or not.
<Comment deleted by user>
Yeah, I believe too that Racing Kings is draw. Though that means almost nothing for human play, imo.
@centaur02 said in #5:
> Yeah, I believe too that Racing Kings is draw. Though that means almost nothing for human play, imo.
Well chess is also "draw" but still so many wins and losses and almost no draws. (At least in Lichess DB - in Masters DB more draws than wins or losses^^)
> Yeah, I believe too that Racing Kings is draw. Though that means almost nothing for human play, imo.
Well chess is also "draw" but still so many wins and losses and almost no draws. (At least in Lichess DB - in Masters DB more draws than wins or losses^^)
@centaur02 said in #5:
> Yeah, I believe too that Racing Kings is draw. Though that means almost nothing for human play, imo.
If someone really found solution of it, Racing Kings will be really boring.
> Yeah, I believe too that Racing Kings is draw. Though that means almost nothing for human play, imo.
If someone really found solution of it, Racing Kings will be really boring.
To start off, to me, a solved game, is a game with a solution. In other words, either one player has a forced win, or there is a perfect forced draw. In case one, this means that no matter what moves the losing side makes, there will always be a winning move for the winning side. In case two, this means that there cannot be any deviations giving an advantage to one side and that there is one main line that the computer agrees is drawn (even if it has losing or other drawn deviations).
Racing Kings isn't solved and I'm pretty sure if it was solvable, it would've been done so by now. What I mean by that, is that since there is multiple different starting moves and variations that lead to a 'perfect draw', there is no single (or select few) solution/s to it. This means, it is a game up to several open-ended questions where multiple solutions are correct at multiple times; there exists too vast a pool of a solutions for the game to be solved. As a person who deeply studied openings and have provided completed proofs on loss and drawn openings (for both human and computer calculation and error), I know that the computer analysis can calculate pretty far and with help of human troubleshooting, if there is a mate sequence or solution, it can be found.
To the extent of my research, the candidate openings for a solution would be 1. Kg3 or 1. Bd4.
For 1. Kg3, I have looked into several iterations for both of the main responses of 1. ... Nxf2 and 1. ... Kb3 and found that there is no singular line where white has a win where black cannot simply play an alternative option and it leads to a drawn line. Even ignoring computer preference for the opening-midgame transition and doing post-analysis to see computer agreement has lead me to several draw lines at best. The closest I've found is in 1 1. Kg3 Nxf2 2. Rxf2 Ka3 3. Rf4 line where it leads to a position where white has a high computer evaluation but there is no mate sequence possible (as black is limited on moves and white has several things to try, but white cannot create a mate sequence in time or ever). That was found with older computer analysis that is now obsolete and has a mistake for black within that line.
For 1. Bd4, it is vastly unexplored and unproofable due to the hypermodern openings within the 1. ... Kb3 response for black. Due to the computer engine unable to accurately analyze such lines at low depth, it makes it incredibly hard to troubleshoot such openings without an incredible amount of time and a really fast and good computer. Due to this, I cannot confidently say no solution lies within these lines, but for nearly every single 1. Bd4 Be4 line I've analyzed and checked through, they all eventually lead to a confirmed draw line (the ones that do not I either did not complete or are marked as inaccurate by modern computer analysis).
With that said, Racing Kings is one of those variants that is very hard to play even near 100% accurately all of the time. There are so many openings and variations that it is really tough to know all the computer lines. Not even the best players in the game know all of the main opening variations and there slight deviations. For a computer to solve this variant, I highly doubt that it will or can be solved. For a human to solve this variant, I am simply standing by it being impossible. Even a computer-solved variant such as antichess isn't solved by a human. My original mission of playing and studying this odd game was to solve it. After several years of study solely aimed at finding a solution and proofing openings (not primarily to memorize solutions and specific lines), I am confident enough to say that Racing Kings, like chess, is more of an open-ended solution game. By that, I mean simply that there is too many solutions for any one computer or one person to be able to always give the perfect solutions and moves within in a practical timeframe.
In conclusion, racing kings is more fun if you study and play for fun or to compete rather than perfection. I think that goes with most smaller competitions, sports, and games, but since there isn't a practical solution, racing kings should be approached under the initial impression that it is unsolvable.
Racing Kings isn't solved and I'm pretty sure if it was solvable, it would've been done so by now. What I mean by that, is that since there is multiple different starting moves and variations that lead to a 'perfect draw', there is no single (or select few) solution/s to it. This means, it is a game up to several open-ended questions where multiple solutions are correct at multiple times; there exists too vast a pool of a solutions for the game to be solved. As a person who deeply studied openings and have provided completed proofs on loss and drawn openings (for both human and computer calculation and error), I know that the computer analysis can calculate pretty far and with help of human troubleshooting, if there is a mate sequence or solution, it can be found.
To the extent of my research, the candidate openings for a solution would be 1. Kg3 or 1. Bd4.
For 1. Kg3, I have looked into several iterations for both of the main responses of 1. ... Nxf2 and 1. ... Kb3 and found that there is no singular line where white has a win where black cannot simply play an alternative option and it leads to a drawn line. Even ignoring computer preference for the opening-midgame transition and doing post-analysis to see computer agreement has lead me to several draw lines at best. The closest I've found is in 1 1. Kg3 Nxf2 2. Rxf2 Ka3 3. Rf4 line where it leads to a position where white has a high computer evaluation but there is no mate sequence possible (as black is limited on moves and white has several things to try, but white cannot create a mate sequence in time or ever). That was found with older computer analysis that is now obsolete and has a mistake for black within that line.
For 1. Bd4, it is vastly unexplored and unproofable due to the hypermodern openings within the 1. ... Kb3 response for black. Due to the computer engine unable to accurately analyze such lines at low depth, it makes it incredibly hard to troubleshoot such openings without an incredible amount of time and a really fast and good computer. Due to this, I cannot confidently say no solution lies within these lines, but for nearly every single 1. Bd4 Be4 line I've analyzed and checked through, they all eventually lead to a confirmed draw line (the ones that do not I either did not complete or are marked as inaccurate by modern computer analysis).
With that said, Racing Kings is one of those variants that is very hard to play even near 100% accurately all of the time. There are so many openings and variations that it is really tough to know all the computer lines. Not even the best players in the game know all of the main opening variations and there slight deviations. For a computer to solve this variant, I highly doubt that it will or can be solved. For a human to solve this variant, I am simply standing by it being impossible. Even a computer-solved variant such as antichess isn't solved by a human. My original mission of playing and studying this odd game was to solve it. After several years of study solely aimed at finding a solution and proofing openings (not primarily to memorize solutions and specific lines), I am confident enough to say that Racing Kings, like chess, is more of an open-ended solution game. By that, I mean simply that there is too many solutions for any one computer or one person to be able to always give the perfect solutions and moves within in a practical timeframe.
In conclusion, racing kings is more fun if you study and play for fun or to compete rather than perfection. I think that goes with most smaller competitions, sports, and games, but since there isn't a practical solution, racing kings should be approached under the initial impression that it is unsolvable.
@ChipoLa14 said in #7:
> If someone really found solution of it, Racing Kings will be really boring.
For cheaters only. No human is going to memorise information of such size.
> If someone really found solution of it, Racing Kings will be really boring.
For cheaters only. No human is going to memorise information of such size.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.