Why don't we solve the goddamn lag before asking if chess can be "solved" ugh
Who is "we"? Nobody in this thread has access to chess.com's backend servers that I know of...
Who has lag?
I am only puzzled I have a 10 ms ping to chess.com, which is 3000 km at the speed of light, so can't be in the US.
This is correct, but I think we all understand a valid way to a solution (apart from practicality of resources) is to use heuristics (eg Stockfish evaluations based on incomplete analysis) to arrive a strategy. We both understand that this strategy has to deal with every legal move that the opposing side to a strategy could play.
You're still talking about a strategy. As we know that the heuristics are imprecise, and since strategy uses tactics in its execution, it is not a valid way to a solution.
A directly analogous approach led to a full, rigorous weak solution to checkers - i.e. a complete drawing strategy for black and for white.
It's worth remembering that at that time they had an extremely strong checkers engine, Chinook, capable of holding its own against the greatest human player of all time, Marion Tinsley. This would only very rarely not play a best move, and helped reduce the analysis a lot. It does seem certain to me that the analysis would have involved some backtracking rather than merely playing Chinook's top choice every time (the reason I say this is that Chinook had lost a game to Tinsley, so did occasionally play inferior moves).
While I haven't been completely precise, my notion is that we can ignore moves by the opponent that lead to a position that has already been dealt with nearer to the starting position.
Absolutely amazing. Who would have thought of that, though??
To be more precise, at first pass, the strategy generates all positions that can be reached in a single ply by applying the strategy (i.e. it picks a first move). The second pass is to add all positions that are reachable by legal moves by the opponent. This repeats with the strategy picking a single move and the opponent adding all legal moves except that, at later opponent passes, we don't need to look at moves that return to a position reached at an earlier pass, since such a move cannot help show the strategy does not draw.
Picking a move is not applying a strategy, since it's compulsory to make a move. So to you, the strategy is picking a move. That is all.
A strategy is an algorithm that determines what move to play in every position that is reached. A deterministic strategy can be a list of positions and moves or a program that maps positions to moves. So a strategy is no more than a list of examples of picking a move.
You are right to point out that when developing a strategy, we can't tell the heuristics will work. If they don't, it's back to square one to develop better heuristics and start going through the passes from the starting position once again.
The way in which @tygxc misses the point is by thinking that by confidently believing some of the opponent moves are bad based on generalisation of imprecise rules that are known to sometimes fail, they can be ignored. This sort of "solution" is for players, not researchers.
The entire point is that chess cannot be solved, at least until better algorithms are developed. You know that and I know that. MAR knows it. tygxc doesn't and it seems that no amount of explanation will convince him. I doubt he reads the criticism, except comments by new people, so he can post his "Mr S says" spiel, which is copy-pasted..
It's nice to be able to simply agree.
He also fails to justify a belief that the solution is small. The opponent being able to play large numbers of moves completely freely generates enormous numbers of positions. There is no guarantee it is as few as the square root of the number of legal positions, since it may take the first player many moves to get an irreversible move played, and there can be hundreds of irreversible moves. Long games can explore a lot of positions even with a small exponential factor (eg 2^100 is bigger than the number of legal positions).
It's also worth noting that the combination of all balanced positions and all positions where one side is winning is more than half of all legal positions.
Never mind, you also fail to justify a lot of your beliefs but you're still happy with them.
Do draw attention to an example. It is important to be clear about what is vague (like the above bit about the number of positions reached being very large) and what is clear but left unproven (like the fact about more than half of positions having value >= 0.5)
Wigan is known to be ...
Oh, Wigan. That explains it.
A strategy is an algorithm that determines what move to play in every position that is reached.
Not precisely. We can say that we use a strategy of using an algorithm to determine moves. We can't say that the algorithm is the strategy.
Yes, we can. I did.
As an analogy, a function in a computer program is some code that takes inputs with specified properties and outputs something. This implements the static mathematical notion of a function, which relates each member of the domain to a unique thing.
If you want it formalised, I can do so, but I see no room for misunderstanding.
This is correct, but I think we all understand a valid way to a solution (apart from practicality of resources) is to use heuristics (eg Stockfish evaluations based on incomplete analysis) to arrive a strategy.
...
Not true, I don't.
I've just posted a king and rook v king position where SF15 gives four bum attempts at a move. I don't understand that that approach will eventually converge to a solution.
I think the heuristics that van den Herik was talking about were the kind of heuristics that Allis included in his connect4 solution which were perfectly valid and proven techniques that could be used in particular situations. Distinct in kind from: Stockfish (or even @tygxc) thinks so.
This is correct, but I think we all understand a valid way to a solution (apart from practicality of resources) is to use heuristics (eg Stockfish evaluations based on incomplete analysis) to arrive a strategy.
...
Not true, I don't.
I've just posted a king and rook v king position where SF15 gives four bum attempts at a move. I don't understand that that approach will eventually converge to a solution.
I think the heuristics that van den Herik was talking about were the kind of heuristics that Allis included in his connect4 solution which were perfectly valid and proven techniques that could be used in particular situations. Distinct in kind from: Stockfish (or even @tygxc) thinks so.
I can see how I failed to be clear enough about what I meant. Firstly, I meant "in principle". It is clear it is a long way from practical, due to the massive computing resources needed.
Also, regarding the actual method, I meant Stockfish would be used to arrive at strategies in the same way as Chinook was used in the solution of checkers. i.e. not with any assumption that the moves it selected were right, but rather using it to recommend candidates and only backtracking when initial candidates were found to be inadequate. Deal with this on a case by case basis may make more sense than going back to square one. (All in principle - the resources are impractical).
Still a little vague, but it deals with your correct observation.
I'm from non Wigan.
Small world! I too am from the complement of Wigan.
@4976
"SF has a triple rule avoidance routine that will fire in many circumstances."
++ Yes that is right. It might be modified to 2-fold. It may also be left 3-fold, when some 2-fold repetitions may get into the lines, but that does not harm.
Are you going to decide which before you start? In less than 5 years? Are you actually going to tell anybody?
@5002
"I think the heuristics that van den Herik was talking about
were the kind of heuristics that Allis included in his connect4 solution
which were perfectly valid and proven techniques that could be used in particular situations."
++ Allen solved Connect Four by brute force.
Allis independently solved Connect Four with a set of 7 rules.
Both are a 'strategy' to achieve the game theoretic value against any opposition.
For chess pure brute force is thinkable, but not efficient.
Pure rules is not feasible: we have rules, but not very precise ones.
Weakly solving chess needs a combination of brute force calculation and knowledge.
The latest computers do the brute force, the good assistants contribute the knowledge.
We know 1 Nh3 opposes less to the draw than 1 Nf3.
Not by induction from played games, but by logic: the center.
We know 1 a4 opposes less to the draw than 1 e4 or 1 d4.
Not by induction from played games, but by logic: the center, development.
We know 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white and thus does not oppose to the draw.
Not by induction from played games, but by logic: a piece down with no compensation is a loss. I have even presented analysis working it out to checkmate.
@5012
'Are you going to decide which before you start?'
++ It does not matter. Both are viable.
The main obstacle is 3 million $ money for 5 years of latest computers and good assistants.
Chess will never be solved. Hmm...
I remember more than one of my elementary school teachers telling us that any time there's a statement containing the words 'always' or 'never' you better read it closely, because it's probably not right.
The Tableturner
Black is up by many pieces but white will turn the tables around. Find best moves.
I'm from non Wigan.
Small world! I too am from the complement of Wigan.
I think the useage has gone out but in military terms, a military formation or part of one that comes from a particular place would be referred to as the "complement" of or from that place: ie the Wigan complement. Also, "contingent is similar". So you're using it wrongly unless you're from Wigan, because it has a prioritised meaning, opposite to the one you seem to assume.
I used it in the correct mathematical sense, and MARattigan understood this. (There being no military context, that usage is irrelevant).
Chess will never be solved. Hmm...
I remember more than one of my elementary school teachers telling us that any time there's a statement containing the words 'always' or 'never' you better read it closely, because it's probably not right.
A woman will never ride on the back of a speckled hen, to Alpha Centauri. Your teacher wasn't right. It was just a moral lesson for you.
Your reasoning is wrong because you ignored the word "probably".
Chess will never be solved. Hmm...
I remember more than one of my elementary school teachers telling us that any time there's a statement containing the words 'always' or 'never' you better read it closely, because it's probably not right.
A woman will never ride on the back of a speckled hen, to Alpha Centauri. Your teacher wasn't right. It was just a moral lesson for you.
Your reasoning is wrong because you ignored the word "probably".
No it wasn't wrong. "Possibly" would be correct: but this isn't a logical treatise.
I think it's not just possible, but probable that if someone is telling me something will "never" happen they're exaggerating.
@Optimissed, to be frank, you are far more skillful at soothing your ego by finding a way to fool yourself you are not wrong than in being precise and improving your understanding.
When A says:
"a random proposition from S is probably false" (S being some specified set of propositions)
and B says:
"here is an example of a proposition from S that is true, so A is wrong"
the bottom line is that B's reasoning is wrong. No shades of grey.
I think saying that chess can never be solved shows a distinct lack of imagination. Think about how fast technology is changing today. Do you really think that in 200 years, if the human race is not extinct by then, that our computer technology can't improve to the point that it could literally solve all chess positions? When you think big, think even bigger.