"The physics is understood. Quantum computers are even commercially available for rental." Yes quantum computers exist, but the physics which isn't yet well understood is the the loss of coherence which is critical to scalibility.
Chess Will Never Be Solved. Why?
Sort:
#297
"Do you really think things have improved so much that they can correctly analyse the theoretical value of those positions in five days?" ++ Yes. It is 5 days each, so that makes 10 days. Moreover, they have already been studying the positions for months before.
"Yes; ICCF has the same rules except it doesn't." ++ A win in ICCF could be a draw in OTB play, except it does not happen, so the ICCF results are in practice the same as if it were OTB. Perfect play in ICCF is just the same play as in OTB.
"I may well have posted three above." ++ I do not deny the existence of the long mates, I just observe that such positions with long checkmates are not reached in real play. In ICCF they can claim a win in say 400 moves in a 7-men endgame table base, but such claims do not happen.
"apart from a handful of one offs Marc has generated only pawnless endgames"
++ The 8-men table base is not yet released. I presume the longest checkmate with 8 men will still stay with a pawnless position just like it is now and just like with 6 men. Likewise I presume it will be the same with 8 men... with 10 men... So the 4 men long checkmate with pawn is the anomaly.
#304
"the physics which isn't yet well understood is the the loss of coherence which is critical to scalibility"
++ Yes, loss of coherence limits scalability, but it is not a physics problem, but a technological problem. There are extraneous influences like cosmic radiation or thermal disturbations because of nonperfect liquid helium cooling.
There are also technological solutions with some redundancy to autocorrect.
Strongly solving chess i.e. from 7 men to 8 men to 9 men... to 32 men requires 146 qubit.
Chess is indeed an exact mathematical problem. There is a finite set of 10^44 legal positions with subsets of 32, 31... 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 men. There is also a relation 'position (FEN) B can result from position (FEN) A' according to the Laws of Chess. So solving chess is finding a path from the initial position towards either a known 7-men draw, or a dead end of 3-fold repetition.
May 17, 2022
0
#225
Coolout, just look at post #307 and you will see that you were indeed mistaken. You do such things so often that it's obvious to everyone you don't pay attention and then react like a four year old when caught out.
CooloutAC wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
Coolout, just look at post #307 and you will see that you were indeed mistaken. You do such things so often that it's obvious to everyone you don't pay attention and then react like a four year old when caught out.
The thing is I don't have to look at any post, because Optimissed is contradicting herself in her own post, regardless of what anyone else says. Or do you have something to add? lol
I react by addressing points made by rebutting and retorting them in every post I make, always trying to stay on topic. You are the one who is on a fake account that doesn't even play games here, whose life has been trolling these forums simply to personally insult the game and its players like a child who never grew up.
One side of her mouth she said chess is a mathematical equation, and out the other side of her mouth she said it isn't. Stating contradictions I find is typical among long time chess players. I'm simply pointing it out. You or Her can choose to clarify, or choose to keep insulting instead which is conceding the point made.
Lol. The amusing part is that Coolout's obvious and simple error is the result of Optimissed's years long inability to use quote functionality correctly, but that is also due to chess.com's threadbare quote functionality 
.
Award Coolout the loss, but no win for Optimissed, or the devs.
CooloutAC wrote:
And the reason mpaetz and optimissed did not simply state that. Is because they are dishonest trolls. But I'm glad you didn't miss the opportunity to prove me wrong. Get yourself a cookie hahaha. too funny. my mistake.
They stated it repeatedly...not in clear enough terms for you, though. Having argued with Tygxc for endless eons, it is probably hard for them to imagine that anybody could mistake his very clear posting style for Optimissed's reply. The ">>>" is also a clue, by the way.
CooloutAC wrote:
Optmiissed stated absolutely nothing, and mpaetz pointed to a post and explained nothing. Because like you, they are nothing but trolls on accounts that don't even play games here. So i don't waste my time following their red herrings if they can't tell me anything in their own words. But continue to ignore my points. I would repaste them again for you, but being the hater you are you would probably start reporting me for spam ...lol
You might want to repaste them in a text color that at least half of chess.com does not see as invisible, then ...
(it never ends, does it?)
You, being cool and all, have probably opted for a black/dark background. So you can see white text. The default background is white, and so your words "posted for posterity" are not readable, and it looks like you just hit enter too many times...
This is why people often choose blue text for in-line replies, by the way, which I believe you railed against (also without understanding) at some point.
CooloutAC wrote:
interesting. not sure why I have to repaste it all, but just to humor your disingenuity...
Rest assured, I don't want to read your repastes of anything.
Optimissed wrote:
I often don't bother with it. I wrongly credit people like you with the ability of seeing what I'm quoting from, since it's always completely obvious. Or it should be, if you had eyes and the ability to open them. Anyway the quote thing often doesn't work ... you can't get your comment into the white area and so it has to be on the same area as the comment you're replying to and then you have to highlight it some other way. If you were grown up, you'd be able to understand what people are replying to without imagining they have to use the quote facility. It's just one of the probably hundreds of glitches on this site that they never see fit to sort.
So win for me, loss for you.
You mean you think that it's a win for you, and a loss for Coolout. I've never really had any problems working around your technical issues.
Optimissed wrote:
What I think is a lot more likely to be functional that what you think. That's been well proven, over time.
Confirmation bias.
CooloutAC wrote:
I'm waiting for you guys to start talking about food again like you've done in other threads to avoid having to retort the points I have made.
It's a time-honored tradition at chess.com when the rank and file want to move on from somebody's repetitive blatherings. Often confined to waffles, but any food will do.
Man, you are learning a lot of stuff today. Good for you.
Optimissed wrote:
btickler wrote:
Confirmation bias.
Observation. You're fairly focussed but you make some mistakes and never admit it.
You mean like trying to pawn off your quoting misadventures?
May 17, 2022
0
#234
btickler wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
I'm waiting for you guys to start talking about food again like you've done in other threads to avoid having to retort the points I have made.
It's a time-honored tradition at chess.com when the rank and file want to move on from somebody's repetitive blatherings. Often confined to waffles, but any food will do.
Man, you are learning a lot of stuff today. Good for you.
Black to move. This position has been solved, but have you solved it?
May 17, 2022
0
#235
btickler wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
I'm waiting for you guys to start talking about food again like you've done in other threads to avoid having to retort the points I have made.
It's a time-honored tradition at chess.com when the rank and file want to move on from somebody's repetitive blatherings. Often confined to waffles, but any food will do.
Man, you are learning a lot of stuff today. Good for you.
Or this:
Hello, What a foolish statement. You can analyze the whole game by using Chess engines or Chess software like Fritz.
Optimissed wrote:
Looks like a draw, Z.
After reading "this position is solved" and not "black to mate in 3" or the like, I already determined not to bother analyzing the board .
That is a great thread derailer, though.
Agrees
CooloutAC wrote:
Keep telling yourself noone reads these threads. The problem with the internet is most normal people stay in the shadows, and very few people are crazy enough to post and comment. Thats why these forums are full of children and loony old bats. There really is no middle ground here, but I do this for the kids and everyone watching.
Your new tagline...
CooloutAC - I do it for the kids
#299
"The prospect of solving chess in a brute force manner hinges on a breakthrough in scalability in quantum computing."
++ A quantum computer is the only way for strongly solving chess i.e. a 32-men table base.
Weakly solving chess takes 5 years on present cloud engines. Sveshnikov 'practically exhausted' B33 in 1988 on his own, without engines, without table bases. So to do 499 times more with cloud engines, table bases and grandmaster assistants is plausible.
"This is an area where the physics itself isn't yet fully understood."
++ The physics is understood. Quantum computers are even commercially available for rental.
https://www.dwavesys.com/solutions-and-products/cloud-platform/
"consider Fermat's Last Theorem"
++ Also the Four Color Theorem etc. Provability is a higher degree of truth. Also the Riemann Hypothesis and the Goldbach Conjecture are believed to be true though not yet proven.