From years of being student, researcher, and practitioner of chess, I feel like it possesses completeness and elegance that are found in mathematical proofs and theories. Thus, it seems only natural to imagine that it should be possible to describe chess in mathematical terms. By that I mean an elegant description, like a compact set of formulas or a proof that chess belongs to such and such field of mathematics. Intuitively, it feels like it should be able to fit in group theory. Does anyone know what attempts have been made in this regard? I would like to specifically exclude engines, neural networks, and the like from the discussion because, despite the obvious success in increasing the quality of play, those attempts do not constitute theoretical proof.

  • 1
    If we had anything close to a mathematical proof about chess, don't you think that the game would be solved? If there was a complete description about the game analogously to a complete description about a group, then we would be able to form much better engines than those based purely on heuristics. – NoseKnowsAll Dec 9 '19 at 20:22
  • 2
    @ NoseKnowsAll I know that the game is not solved. My question is about the attempts to do that. – postoronnim Dec 9 '19 at 20:44
  • @Rewan Demontay That's definitely something. However, I am curious about a complete solution, or at least attempts. I just have a hunch that chess, or elements thereof like pieces and positions, having symmetries like groups in group theory do, could potentially be classified as a set of those groups. Moreover, group theory being complete, meaning it incorporates any mathematical object, could uncork some previously unseen properties of chess. – postoronnim Dec 9 '19 at 21:07
  • 2
    It looks more like graph theory, with (directed) arrows indicating which positions can be reached in one move from another position. I do not think there is any kind of relation between group theory and chess; they have quite different characteristics (actions in chess, for example, are in general not invertible). – Alexander Geldhof Dec 9 '19 at 21:54
  • 4
    Has no one mentioned the wikipedia page on this subject yet? – OliverRadini Dec 10 '19 at 12:51

There are many different aspects of chess which can be formalized mathematically. Since the 19th century at least, chess has been mined as a resource to drive mathematical innovation. So when talking about a mathematical characterization of chess, it's not a single modeling that we are talking about, which grabs every feature, but rather a number of models, in which the power of each is paradoxically in the letting go of some aspect of chess which is not relevant for that analysis.

Perhaps the earliest success (not counting the counting :-) of grains of rice on a chessboard) was Zermelo's Theorem (yes by one of the founders of ZF Set Theory) which states that in chess "either White can force a win, or Black can force a win, or both sides can force at least a draw".

Combinatorial Game Theory (developed by celebrated mathematicians John H. Conway, Elwyn Berlekamp and Richard Guy) has been successfully applied to chess. A couple of assumptions in this theory go against its general applicability to chess though. One is that a win in CGT is solely if your opponent can’t move which does not address stalemate. Secondly there is the notion of “entailing move” (e.g. check) where if one person plays, the other player must respond rather than the first player playing again. But Noam Elkies has derived some non-trivial results in chess endgames by computing their CGT value - references given in his chess page http://www.math.harvard.edu/~elkies/chess.html: "On Numbers and Endgames" and "Higher Nimbers [sic] in Pawn Endgames on Large Chessboards".

You mentioned group theory - well curiously the set of combinatorial games under composition does form an abelian group! To be fair, the two obstacles mentioned above do prevent chess itself from behaving in this way.

There is a massive amount of combinatorial work which has been done around the chessboard. Vaclav Kotesovec has published online an 800 page book just on the subject of non-attacking chess pieces (generalizing the 8 queens problem massively). See http://www.kotesovec.cz/ for the link. This is related to Magic Squares, Experimental Design, etc.

There is also, starting in Finland with Eero Bonsdorff, a long lineage in path enumeration chess problems, counting the number of ways that a position can be reached. This often involves the analysis of Standard Young Tableaux, which also underpin representation theory of symmetric groups. Fibonacci numbers, Catalan numbers and Euler numbers are all frequently found here, together with other combinatorial identities whose realization can be found lurking in ingenious chess compositions. See https://pdb.dieschwalbe.de/search.jsp, and type g='mathematics' in the search box.

The knight's tour problem is also famous for helping to push the study of Hamiltonian graphs, and particularly the challenge of counting the number of such objects. See https://www.mayhematics.com/t/t.htm.

The theory of computation also asks about whether chess is determinate. This is all about arranging sets of pieces in much bigger boards to try to make machines that are equivalent to Turing machines. This brings us to the subject of the limits of computation, which is where I would make the point that if a mathematical theory characterized chess completely, then we should be no more able to reason with it than we are to play at chess itself. That might allow us to escape some of the linguistic challenges of the current laws (e.g. whether pawns can be oriented).

I think there is also research value in a mathematical description of how chess conventions apply consistently to chess problems including fairy chess. Guus Rol has a very ambitious program which reduces each turn to “micro-phases” and claims to be able to determine with great accuracy how fairy conditions interact in complex “retro-active” situations, where both retro and forward logic is necessary. I don’t know if he will ever complete his theory.

I personally would like to see a more modest theory, which treats each move as atomic and although it doesn’t cover fairy chess so well, at least can cover retro-active aspects of problem conventions such as castling and e.p. Even that has not been done yet.

The mathematical physicist Roger Penrose published a chess position about 2 years ago which was intended to argue his long-held position that there is a fundamentally different kind of reasoning displayed by humans than an AI grounded in "computable functions" can demonstrate. See https://en.chessbase.com/post/a-chess-problem-holds-the-key-to-human-consciousness

Even though the theory of random graphs, and Monte Carlo analysis has been applied very successfully to engines, particularly the most recent generation, I don't think this disqualifies it from being considered a mathematical theory.

There is also a linear algebra approach to counting moves and positions. “If chess is a graph, what is its maximum eigenvalue?” is a very real and interesting question. See Francois Labelle's site at http://wismuth.com/chess/statistics-games.html

Linear algebra can be applied successfully to other chess related questions e.g. how many ways are there for a rook to move from a1 to h8 in exactly n moves? How about a king?

For many years, Noam Elkies & Richard Stanley have been collaborating on a book on chess and mathematics. I don't know when it will finally emerge, or whether they have given up on this. But "The Mathematical Knight" given on Noam's chess page linked earlier perhaps gives a foretaste of that book. Richard Stanley is one of the leading lights in Combinatorics: see http://www-math.mit.edu/~rstan/chess/queue.pdf, and Noam's birthday article https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0508645.pdf

There is also already a book "Mathematics and Chess" by Miodrag S. Petkovic, but I am not familiar with its contents.

Some of these ideas are listed in a Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mathematical_chess_problems, and there's a more specific page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_chess_problem.

If anyone else has other examples of chess and mathematics, please mention them in comments and I will try to incorporate them in this response. If anyone has links that illustrate the topics I am mentioning, please add them, thanks.

Finally: math.stackexchange.com has 62 pages of chess entries!?!

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    I have been looking for these mathematical- and combinatorial-game-theory-analyses which really focus chess (and which not focus combinatorial-games in general) for several years. I have not find many results. Do you know some concrete books/papers for this topic? – anion Dec 11 '19 at 16:05
  • 1
    Hi anion, the best are Noam Elkies' two endgame papers - I have added the link to his chess page which gives the specific details. – Laska Dec 11 '19 at 16:56

Here are some starting spots in reading up on Game theory which is the mathematical tool that would be most appropriate for making claims about chess.

This is a light history of early game theory. Chess is a "perfect information game" and there are some interesting things one can claim about this category of games. See this for example. I would also read up on Claude Shannon. Shannon's number gives a bound on game complexity tree. For standard chess we have an intractable puzzle but you could make a smaller variants and solve these smaller games. Here's an example of this. The authors claim to have solved a smaller 5x5 variant of chess.

| improve this answer | |

Not really. At least not serious mathematicians.

It is covered somewhat in Game Theory but other approaches like Group Theory do not seem to fit; although there might some higher dimensional non-linearish type description that could be found.

So Algebra which includes Groups, and Topology too, seem to be out but perhaps it could fit in Analysis if somebody cared enough to try it. But that would an advanced mathematician who would be more likely to attempt a better problem that would lead to their PhD and a job teaching.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Thanks for the insight. If such an attempt succeeds, it ought to lend a lot of recognition. Just think of how many people have struggled to solve it so far. – postoronnim Dec 9 '19 at 22:30
  • @postoronnim - It would be worth recognition. I am not sure how many qualified people have seriously tried to work on that problem. – yobamamama Dec 9 '19 at 23:42
  • Noam Elkies springs to mind. – Rebecca J. Stones Dec 11 '19 at 12:31

I'd hate to say it, but mathematically speaking chess as we play it is very boring. It is a perfect information game, without any non-determinism, for two alternating players. This means that chess is either a win for white, a win for black, or a draw. The optimal strategy for chess is trivial and known: minimax. As far as maths is concerned, chess is solved.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    @emory - because actually executing the optimal strategy is computationally infeasible? (due to combinatorial explosion) – davidbak Dec 10 '19 at 17:43
  • 3
    @emery - perhaps you're confusing the way mathematics is done with the way other work is done? Consider: An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician are working, when a small fire breaks out in front of their offices. The engineer panics and grabs the fire extinguisher, spraying it everywhere, putting out the fire, but causing extra damage in the process. The physicist runs some quick calculations, and uses just enough to put out the fire. The mathematician sees the fire, looks over to the fire extinguisher and says “a solution exists!” then returns to his office. – davidbak Dec 10 '19 at 18:10
  • @emory You don't understand. Thanks to minimax we don't only know what to do (that is to score more points in basketball or cause checkmate of the opponent in chess), but we also know how exactly to do it. We simply know that if before every possible chess move we play all the possible combinations of how game could develop and then choose the best one, we are performing the best possible strategy. That is minimax algorithm in nutshell. And that is very different to your basketball example. – Firzen Dec 11 '19 at 15:09
  • @Firzen, but if you don't care about such things then yes, chess is solved. – emory Dec 11 '19 at 15:22
  • 1
    @emory No, minimax doesn't require a lot of memory at all. Your mobile phone has the computational power to optimally solve chess - it just requires a long, long, long time. And even if you'd need a huge computer until the heat death of the universe, that's no concern of mathematics. – orlp Dec 11 '19 at 15:23

Chess isn't the sort of object that mathematicians are interested in studying. Mathematicians care about problems that are in some way infinite: either infinite objects or finite objects of which there are infinitely many examples. Chess is completely finite. There is only one chess, it uses a finite board, there are finitely many possible positions. If chess is played rationally (and we can't hope to characterize it without that assumption) then games are finite in length. "Rational" basically means that either player will claim a draw as soon as they have the right to, and that means that games are less than about 5900 moves, which means there are only finitely many games. A mathematician might study the prime numbers, but they're not going to study the single number 1827368429.

To a mathematician, "solve chess" is just a calculation, and mathematicians aren't interested in calculations. The fact that it's a culturally important calculation might encourage somebody to try, but it's hard to see anybody having the time to do something so complicated. It's the sort of thing that would take decades of full-time work and, if you failed, you'd have basically nothing.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Big math does not have an issue with finite things, there are plenty of examples if you look around. The question is not about calculation or computation, it's about giving chess a theoretical footing in the math realm. – postoronnim Dec 10 '19 at 21:34
  • 5
    "Mathematicians [only] care about problems that are in some way infinite." Sorry, but based on my experience in math, this is either completely wrong, or horribly miscommunicated. I suggest you clarify your point. – YiFan Dec 11 '19 at 4:40
  • 2
    I know this is maybe a strange critique but when I read your writing it seems to come across that you have taking some assumptions/restrictions that the OP didn't necessarily place into their question. So why are we not assuming that the OP asked a meritorious question that might have a "Yes! But the natural math move would be study a generalization..."- answer. As opposed to "No. Because you seem to be misunderstanding the type of thing math gets at..." answer. One seems to be more encouraging. – Mason Dec 12 '19 at 20:04
  • 1
    @Mason It's a reasonable critique. I don't think I really am adding restrictions but, rather, I'm answering the question that's been asked. You're suggesting generalizing the question to get what I agree is a more interesting answer, and that's also a perfectly reasonable approach. – David Richerby Dec 12 '19 at 21:04
  • 1
    I appreciate you taking the time to read a critique. And I respect the desire to answer exactly what was asked rather than making too many unjustified guesses as to what they were getting at. – Mason Dec 12 '19 at 21:10

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.