Is Chess Something We Can Solve? - Chess Forums - Page 10

IJustCantEven · 2024-06-21T00:46:52-07:00

Is chess solvable without programming things to solve it for us? I am talking about making chess a totally obsolete, not mind intriguing game because the human mind has made it a routine to do certain moves in certain scenarios to beat your opponent every time. There are many games where you can sol

MEGACHE3SE

Jun 26, 2024

0

#181

V_Awful_Chess wrote:

MEGACHE3SE wrote:

IJustCantEven wrote:

But what if it’s not? What if there’s a way to simplify the game other than trial and error from a computer?

I suppose following these "invariants" it might be possible to show you cannot force a bare king with sufficient mating material on your side?

This wouldn't prove that chess is a draw; but it would prove that chess is either a draw or a middlegame checkmate, which I think is an achievement. Especially since I think most people who think chess is a win for white imagine them winning in an endgame scenario.

Yes you can definitely use invariants to extrapolate endgame positions, however you have to GET to that position first, and prove that it would be the right conditions.

MARattigan

Jun 26, 2024

0

#182

MEGACHE3SE wrote:

a random number "n" is chosen. two players take turns subtracting positive palindromic numbers from "n" until one player reaches 0, of which then that player wins. (you cant go negative, and palindromic numbers are numbers that are the same backwards and forwards, so 11, 929, 89398, single digit numbers, etc).

given 'n', show which player (the player going first or second) has a strategy to guarantee a victory.

what's the answer opti?

Quick question before I go to the pub. Do you count 00300 as a palindromic number?

MEGACHE3SE

Jun 26, 2024

0

#183

MARattigan wrote:

MEGACHE3SE wrote:

a random number "n" is chosen. two players take turns subtracting positive palindromic numbers from "n" until one player reaches 0, of which then that player wins. (you cant go negative, and palindromic numbers are numbers that are the same backwards and forwards, so 11, 929, 89398, single digit numbers, etc).

given 'n', show which player (the player going first or second) has a strategy to guarantee a victory.

what's the answer opti?

Quick question before I go to the pub. Do you count 00300 as a palindromic number?

no https://mathworld.wolfram.com/PalindromicNumber.html#:~:text=.,(OEIS%20A002113).

MARattigan

Jun 26, 2024

0

#184

OK ta.

In the link 0 is actually an anomaly, but it's an anomaly built into the conventional way of writing numbers. (If you're to write numbers without leading zeros it should be an empty string, but then it would be difficult to see.)

MEGACHE3SE

Jun 26, 2024

0

#185

MARattigan wrote:

OK ta.

In the link 0 is actually an anomaly, but it's an anomaly built into the conventional way of writing numbers. (If you're to write numbers without leading zeros it should be an empty string, but then it would be difficult to see.)

notice how i said positive palindromic numbers in my initial post.

MARattigan

Jun 26, 2024

0

#186

I did. But 00300 is positive.

Anyway off to the pub now. I'll tell you if I have a working solution when I get back.

MEGACHE3SE

Jun 26, 2024

0

#187

MARattigan wrote:

I did. But 00300 is positive.

oh you meant 0 as an addition in that comment, where as I thought u were referencing how it listed "0" on its own as a palindrome. no, it does not count.

as a rule of thumb for these sorts of questions 00300 is basically never counted as a palindrome. because its also 0300, and 300. which aren't palindromes.

DiogenesDue

Jun 26, 2024

0

#188

tygxc wrote:

++ Take this October 28, 2022 interview with the reigning ICCF World Champion Jon Edwards:
'the key is planning, which computers do not do well'
'computer engines did not understand the main ideas and suggested in most middlegame positions that all candidate moves were equivalent'
'Too many tournaments, even strong tournaments, are decided by human error when making a move. I thankfully managed to avoid clerical errors throughout the entire process.''it’s not just about the hardware, but also about one’s ability to make the most of the hardware'
'a sequence that no computer would consider or find'

The pontifications of somebody doing essentially nothing but passing around engine evals like a host serving appetizers and trying to justify it.

The bolded phrase is the key. He admits that humans are messing up the engines' results and that the work is mostly clerical in nature.

playerafar

Jun 26, 2024

0

#189

Elroch wrote:

MEGACHE3SE wrote:

tygxc wrote:

This ultra-weakly solves Chess: it is a draw,
as at least 1 of the 112 games is a perfect game with optimal play from both sides.

This is also part of a weak solution of chess
as the 112 draws redundantly show how black can draw against reasonable white tries to win.

reminder to observers that this by definition is not a solution of any type as it is not a rigorous proof. literally trillions upon trillions of variations are completely ignored without justification (beyond vague engine/player evaluations).

It's like someone asserted a proof of Fermat's last theorem based on the existence of a group of people all of whom had independently made poor attempts to solve it.

There is a reason why @tygxc is psychologically incapable of answering the question of exactly how many ICCF draws were needed to solve chess (in his mind). Was it just one draw? Seems absurd. Two? Three? Forty seven? All equally absurd, including 111 and 112. Being precise about the way knowledge evolves throws light on reasoning that is simply wrong.

Games are empirical evidence and as such can only be used to modify strength of uncertain belief. If everyone learnt about Bayesian reasoning - the precise formalism for all reasoning with empirical data - it would be better.

Explaining to tygxc why he's wrong would be like explaining to deniers of climate science why manmade global warming causes extra-deadly freezes in addition to extra-hot heat waves and other weather disasters.
The deniers don't get it. For a very simple reason.
They don't want to.

playerafar

Jun 26, 2024

0

#190

llama_l wrote:

tygxc wrote:

@201

"This criticism would have been valid 10-15 years ago, but not today."
++ Take this October 28, 2022 interview with the reigning ICCF World Champion Jon Edwards:
'the key is planning, which computers do not do well'
'computer engines did not understand the main ideas and suggested in most middlegame positions that all candidate moves were equivalent'
'Too many tournaments, even strong tournaments, are decided by human error when making a move. I thankfully managed to avoid clerical errors throughout the entire process.'
'it’s not just about the hardware, but also about one’s ability to make the most of the hardware'
'a sequence that no computer would consider or find'

Yes, and in that interview he admits his plan, which involved "a sequence that no computer would find" was completely pointless because it was a draw anyway... but he was very proud of it because... well, it's unclear why he was proud of a non-chess related goal. I think he was probably bored.

When the engine can't decide on a move, the human has the engine play entire games (using various moves) against itself... and then chooses a move that sometimes loses if their opponent is careless enough (or lacks the computing power) to do the same.

The notion that the human is actually coming up with ideas for the engine (on their own via strategic understanding, or via research of human games) is laughable.

"The notion that the human is actually coming up with ideas for the engine (on their own via strategic understanding, or via research of human games) is laughable."
That's a remarkable point. Will it be 'lost' on tygxc?
He's not afraid ...

Elroch

Jun 26, 2024

0

#191

It is comical that anyone would think that human input that steers the engine to one draw rather than another is of value.

Elroch

Jun 26, 2024

0

#192

tygxc wrote:

@183

"What is ICCF"
++ International Correspondence Chess Federation.

The name is a historical anomaly. Once it was correct: good chess players played correspondence chess. Then they made a bad decision regarding cheating with computers (they indicated they would do nothing about it, the opposite of the decision of the ICC and chess.com) and unofficially became the International Centaur Chess Federation. Since that time, computers have improved by more than 1000 points, so they have now become the International Computer Chess Federation (and jockeys club).

playerafar

Jun 26, 2024

0

#193

Elroch wrote:

It is comical that anyone would think that human input that steers the engine to one draw rather than another is of value.

Can we find ways to help tygxc to build his case?
Defense lawyer #1
'Hey these engines come from MIT.'
'And the CPU's are in air-conditioned rooms filled with pure Argon!'
Defense lawyer #2
'None of that will sell to the jury.
Gotta come up with something better or our client's heading for the Electric Chair.'
lawyer #1 'Juror #6 is from Massachussets. She's got a son in MIT.
I think we can work on her. And its hot in this courtroom.
Just mentioning air conditioning likely to win her over.'
lawyer #2 'I didn't think of those. Good work!'

landloch

Jun 26, 2024

0

#194

Is there evidence that in ICCF-type events that humans contribute anything meaningful? In the last few years is there a track record of humans+computers beating computers (with all computers on comperable systems)?

MARattigan

Jun 26, 2024

0

#195

MARattigan wrote:

I did. But 00300 is positive.

Anyway off to the pub now. I'll tell you if I have a working solution when I get back.

@MEGACHE3SE

Back from the pub. Didn't get to consider your problem over a pint, because after the last exchange it becomes rather trivial and I'd solved it before I got to the front door.

What I did consider was the problem you originally set, where 00300 could count as a palindromic number (it is palindromic). This also has a definite, if less trivial, solution so I'll leave you to ponder the solution to your own problem.

I won't post the simpler solution. Let us see whether @Optimissed can solve it with his unfeasibly large testicl.., er, brain. I suspect his only chance would be to consult the filial Oracle but I wouldn't hold out much hope of his understanding the response.

Optimissed

Jun 26, 2024

0

#196

MEGACHE3SE wrote:

a random number "n" is chosen. two players take turns subtracting positive palindromic numbers from "n" until one player reaches 0, of which then that player wins. (you cant go negative, and palindromic numbers are numbers that are the same backwards and forwards, so 11, 929, 89398, single digit numbers, etc).

given 'n', show which player (the player going first or second) has a strategy to guarantee a victory.

what's the answer opti?

If the question is correct then the first player has that strategy for obvious reasons considering trivial examples. BUT the question may not be correct.

MARattigan

Jun 26, 2024

0

#197

Optimissed wrote:

MEGACHE3SE wrote:

a random number "n" is chosen. two players take turns subtracting positive palindromic numbers from "n" until one player reaches 0, of which then that player wins. (you cant go negative, and palindromic numbers are numbers that are the same backwards and forwards, so 11, 929, 89398, single digit numbers, etc).

given 'n', show which player (the player going first or second) has a strategy to guarantee a victory.

what's the answer opti?

If the question is correct then the first player has that strategy for obvious reasons. BUT the question may not be correct.

The question is correct however you read it. The only ambiguity is whether leading zeros are allowed in the palindromic numbers (numbers are not conventionally written with leading zeros).

You can assume leading zeros are not allowed.

Your answer is wrong (in either case). Try again.

Optimissed

Jun 26, 2024

0

#198

MARattigan wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

MEGACHE3SE wrote:

a random number "n" is chosen. two players take turns subtracting positive palindromic numbers from "n" until one player reaches 0, of which then that player wins. (you cant go negative, and palindromic numbers are numbers that are the same backwards and forwards, so 11, 929, 89398, single digit numbers, etc).

given 'n', show which player (the player going first or second) has a strategy to guarantee a victory.

what's the answer opti?

If the question is correct then the first player has that strategy for obvious reasons. BUT the question may not be correct.

The question is correct however you read it. The only ambiguity is whether leading zeros are allowed in the palindromic numbers (numbers are not conventionally written with leading zeros).

You can assume leading zeros are not allowed.

Your answer is wrong (in either case). Try again.

It can't be wrong. If it is wrong then the question was given incorrectly.

Optimissed

Jun 26, 2024

0

#199

Like I suggested, just use a trivial example. Either the first player wins or the question was given wrongly.

MARattigan

Jun 26, 2024

0

#200

Your unfeasibly large testicl.., er, brain appears to have let you down again. Let us start with the number 240. You go first and see if you win. (Choose your own palindrome and subtract it, in case you haven't quite got the hang of it.)