In the world of math, games aren't meant for children. Instead, math tries to get everything from the "overly difficult" stage it was at the start to the "completed" status to reach a definite answer.
What would be a definite answer in the game of Chess? The perfect game, of course.
But, what is a perfect game? Before starting this let's define "perfect". When you call a game "perfect" it means that every play was the best possible. The biggest trouble is in exstablishing whether a move is the best possible or it isn't. While there are some obvious things (let's say, the field is only made up of two kings and a queen: letting the queen checkmate the king is, of course, the best move), there are other in which you can't as easily decide.
I've then come up with this method:
Starting with the premise that it involves tons of computations, I think that if a machine with the right algorithm is left to work for a year it MIGHT finish it (however, I'm no computer engineer, I may be wrong).
In Chess, the perfect game is a game that, no matter the opponent move, you won't lose. Thus, if we calculated all of the games, we could build a tree for every move: if a move has at least one path in which everytime it's the opponent's turn he'll have to pick a move that will result into entering another path in which he'll have to enter another path, and so on, until they'll have to choose a path in which you'll either win or draw, it's the perfect game. (I'm aware the explanation might not have been too clear, don't hesitate to ask.)
To ease the calculations, if there's even only one loss, you can delete the whole path from calculations.
I'm no genius, either, and I'll guess this has been though before, so why hasn't this been done yet? is it, indeed, due to a computational problem?
