Any intelligent life here to talk about chess? Especially Mathematicians and Physicists
Sort:
What are you talking when you say that with the 11 mates game there are multiple solutions to have a perfect game? The solution that makes that game perfect is literally the only one that makes the mate on 11 moves. Ofc you play other positions with less mates and still maybe you win but the mate that you have in that moment is the mate on 11 moves, that is the only best secuence of moves in that moment in that game.
Honestly you have a lack of math backroung with demostration is refering because you as I told you before everything you are saying It is only assumed and not proven or defined..
Also what you say about chess is pretty obvious for more advanced chess players, maybe because you are a low rated player and you think chess is like movies, including that Stokfish isnt perfect, but it will be in couple of years.
Jul 11, 2023
0
#104
Optimissed wrote:
valeria_suarez_10 wrote:
alep the one with the sigma sign, summation, are you a mathematician?
There are mathematicians who can do the applied mechanics of maths perfectly well but who don't understand fully how they may apply to the real world. Hence they make mistakes and are often too sure of themselves into the bargain.
For instance, a mathematician (?) who thinks stockfish will be playing perfect chess in a couple of years.
I don't want to get involved in a slanging match but I feel the need to point out the ironic choice of words. Applied Mechanics is the application of Mathematics to the real world.
Jul 12, 2023
0
#105
You could be presented with a king-rook endgame against a king and queen, you have a king and queen,
How could you checkmate in this position?
https://lichess.org/practice/checkmates/piece-checkmates-ii/Rg2cMBZ6/807Ghffh
Jul 12, 2023
0
#106
This algorithm tells you, you have beaten someone, that someone beat that someone 1, that someone 1 beat that someone 2, that someone
2 he beat that someone 3, etc, until he got to someone n who beat Magnus,
you just need to enter her lichess name, i already did
https://freopen.org/@/valeria_suarez_10
Jul 12, 2023
0
#107
What is the World Chess Champion Number?
First we need to discuss the Erdős number. Paul Erdős (1913–1996) was an influential Hungarian mathematician who in the latter part of his life spent a great deal of time writing papers with a large number of colleagues, working on solutions to outstanding mathematical problems. Paul Erdős has an Erdős number of zero. Any coauthor of Erdős has an Erdős number of 1. Any coauthor of a coauthor of Erdős has an Erdős number of 2, and so on.
Similarly the current WC has 0. Anyone who wins a game against the WC has 1, anyone who wins against 1 has 2, and so on. To get any a player has to (directly or indirectly) win against the current WC on Lichess.
Jul 12, 2023
0
#109
My brother does physics at uni. Very smart. 1000 rated at chess. I read politics at uni. I’m 1800. Remind me why it should be “especially mathematicians and physicists”?
Mathematicians and physicians have no more smart things to say about chess than anybody else of the same rating.
Human achievements and insight on ANY field are the byproduct of SPECIALIZED EXPERTISE and not some magical cloud wrapping them and called "intelligence". Because chess rewards gross arrogance, you may also encounter very high amounts of Dunning-Krueger effect here. Don't be fooled.
Optimissed a écrit :
physicists!
English is hard 
Jul 12, 2023
0
#112
Physics has nothing to do with chess. Mathematics touches it, but has nothing to do with winning. If you want to communicate with good chess players just do that.
Jul 12, 2023
0
#113
Jul 12, 2023
0
#114
The mathematics of Chess is a legitimate subject of study. Arguably, it's more recreational now rather than of practical interest because the work has largely been completed. If we were to look for areas where it would be of practical use then I would suggest investigating static position scoring heuristics and pruning algorithms. Without having a specialist knowledge, I believe that these are the key components of Chess programs which could be improved to deliver better engines. It's interesting to note a feedback loop. As Chess analysis improves, the heuristic can be better trained and when Chess can be solved the entire solution could be encapsulated within it.
While you're correct that Chess is not a physical problem, I imagine that the reason to include Physicists in the title of the thread is because many of the best young mathematicians choose physics as a field of study.
Jul 12, 2023
0
#115
valeria_suarez_10 wrote:
I don't like to solve chess puzzles that are not proven to be perfect moves, it has already happened that some movements have been considered excellent moves, and an engine arrives and overthrows that belief, or some movements have been shown to be lousy, bad moves and an engine arrives and knocks down all those unprovable chess conjectures,
example of this alpha zero sacrificed 3 pawns and it was considered a bad idea, and it turned out to be brilliant moves,
I can empathise with that but heuristics are legitimate mathematical tools. Solutions which are statistically good enough have their place alongside those which are analytically perfect.
Some problems can be solved with arbitrary accuracy yet have no analytical solution.
In practice, we almost always use imperfect solutions to mathematical problems. Perfect analytical solutions can form many of the components of that broader solution though.
Jul 14, 2023
0
#116
I think CraigIreland was right on in expanding the math connection. If you’re at the level of writing software and code and algorithms to design a chess engine, it’s obviously intensely math driven (but miles over my head). I know having two rooks is better than one or if you take three of my pawns I have five left. I’m great at chess math.
Physics-wise, if I’m playing on chess.com from a very large dense planet in a system hurtling through space at half the speed of light by a super massive black hole, I might have a time advantage of eons per move.
Physics-wise, if I’m playing on chess.com from a very large dense planet in a system hurtling through space at half the speed of light by a super massive black hole, I might have a time advantage of eons per move.
Houston there is a problem!
Jul 15, 2023
0
#119
valeria_suarez_10 escribió:
the white pieces play and checkmate in 4 moves
Mate de la coz, si rey no regresa a la esquina mate en 3 con dama
You're confusing science with intelligence. How typical for scholars in this age.