Finally!
Good on you sir!
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Optimissed wrote:
haiaku wrote:
tygxc wrote:
"That is _NOT_ a general rule." ++ Pawn up = win is a general rule, but there are exceptions.
So, strictly speaking, it is not a general rule. How many exceptions, in percentage?
Don't be sarcastic.
I was not. @tygxc supported his claim that a pawn of advantage is a win quoting Capablanca. Besides the fact that this is an appeal to authority, Capablanca wrote that "the winning of a pawn among good players of even strength often means the winning of the game" (Chess Fundamentals, emphasis mine), which is rather different from "always wins the game, with exceptions". Engines usually assign the advantage of a pawn an expected score around 0.75.
The reason why I insist on that goes beyond the actual value of a pawn. It is to state that it is not possible, in order to declare chess solved, to cut off lines on the basis of "general" principles not proven to always hold true (in chess, indeed, most of them are proven to not always hold true).
Optimissed wrote:
haiaku wrote:
tygxc wrote:
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 provides no compensation at all and can be dismissed.
Unproven.
A comment like that means that nothing you say can be taken seriously.
That's a pooh-pooh. Stating that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 may even win, as above goes beyond the value of the specific line. Allowing dismissals of such lines would create precedents too, and it would be very difficult, then, to fix boundaries for what can or cannot be cut off during the search.
Optimissed wrote:
haiaku wrote:
tygxc wrote:
"they can be sound (1. e4 e5 2. f4)" ++ 'It loses by force' - Fischer, 'I could not find a way for white to equalise' - Kramnik '23.4% black wins, 6.3% white wins' - AlphaZero Figure 4. (d)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf
Appeal to authority.
That's completely acceptable when discussing chess lines.
Missing the point. It is not acceptable when discussing about solutions. A solution has to prove whether and when authorities are right, not the other way around.
And after two "ad hominem"
Optimissed wrote:
This is becoming repetitive. You ought to have settled for your one good point and not tried to do a bthicker.
Thank you for the tip, but sorry, I am not taking you as an example of good arguing.
Optimissed wrote:
btickler wrote:
The pedantic adherence to using transient and possibly faulty post numbers is directly analogous to the pedantic adherence to using faulty assumptions and numbers in trying to solve chess .
That's something you and I agree on. [ . . . ] there's something going on in this discussion that I don't like the look of. I'm not blaming you because it's happened to us all: getting sucked into a profitless argument that basically doesn't move..
It is not going to move. That's because, despite the inevitable @tygxc's reply, chess cannot be solved in reasonable time, at the moment. But some people never concede, as you yourself noted. So what do you expect? The only thing one can do is to fight attempts of deceiving and disinformation.
@4024
"In any case, the numbers cannot be achieved in 5 years."
++ Because you say so? I take the word of Sveshnikov over yours. The numbers confirm it.
"I believe that you give him too much credit."
++ I believe you do not pay him enough respect. He knew what he was talking about.
"Trillions of positions in five years?" ++ Yes: a billion positions per second per cloud engine.
"Each with human intervention?" ++ No. Human intervention only at the start and at the end.
tygxc wrote:
@4024
"In any case, the numbers cannot be achieved in 5 years."
++ Because you say so? I take the word of Sveshnikov over yours. The numbers confirm it.
"I believe that you give him too much credit."
++ I believe you do not pay him enough respect. He knew what he was talking about.
"Trillions of positions in five years?" ++ Yes: a billion positions per second per cloud engine.
"Each with human intervention?" ++ No. Human intervention only at the start and at the end.
I'm just curious, when does the 5 year period start? Was it a year ago? 4 years ago? I know it's not today.
@4028
"when does the 5 year period start?"
++ When there is money for the cloud engines and the assistants.
tygxc wrote:
@4024
"In any case, the numbers cannot be achieved in 5 years."
++ Because you say so? I take the word of Sveshnikov over yours. The numbers confirm it.
"I believe that you give him too much credit."
++ I believe you do not pay him enough respect. He knew what he was talking about.
"Trillions of positions in five years?" ++ Yes: a billion positions per second per cloud engine.
"Each with human intervention?" ++ No. Human intervention only at the start and at the end.
OK tygxc, you cherrypicked your answers and you ignored the fact that you clearly state that each positional assessment is guided by a human GM (in an attempt to prune the search tree to relevant positions).
It is clear that you wish to ignore the fact that it's impossible for humans to deal with such numbers. I asked you why you believe it's possible. Not because "Sveshnikov thinks it possible", because it would just be an assumption that he would have thought it possible. This question, which you ignore and which was directed to you, asks why YOU think it possible.
Trillions of positions in five years? Each with human intervention? I wonder WHY you think it possible.
If you choose to continue to ignore this question, which is regarding why you can think it possible that a human can personally intervene in each of trillions of chess positions in five years, which is what you have indicated is the modus operandi for your proposed undertaking, it would strongly indicate that you are dishonest and that you hope to continue to pull the wool over others' eyes forever.
So I suggest that you answer it please. Once more, the question is
Trillions of positions in five years? Each with human intervention? I wonder WHY you think it possible.
So do we all.
@4030
"you clearly state that each positional assessment is guided by a human GM"
++ No, not at all. The humans start the calculations from meaningful positions.
Not 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6, not 1 a4, not 1 Nf3 d5 2 Ng1.
The humans also select the promising lines, e.g. 1 e4 e5, renouncing all other 19 replies.
The humans stop a calculation when it is a clear draw or win. E.g. when one side is material down with no compensation or in some opposite colored bishop endings. That is to save engine time. In case of any doubt, calculate more.
"It's impossible for humans to deal with such numbers." ++ The humans do not deal with the numbers, the engines do. The humans only reduce the number the engines have to deal with.
"he would have thought it possible" ++ Sveshnikov clearly stated so in his farewell interview.
"why YOU think it possible" ++ Because I have calculated the number of legal, sensible, reachable during solving, and relevant positions to be 10^17 and that corresponds to 5 years.
"Trillions of positions in five years?"
++ Yes: 5 a * 365.25 d/a * 24 h/d * 3600 s/h * 10^9 position/s/engine = 10^17 position/engine
"Each with human intervention?" ++ No, not at all. The humans only start the calculations and occasionally end a calculation in case of clear win or draw.
"why you can think it possible that a human can personally intervene"
++ The humans set up the starting positions.
The humans occasionally end a calculation that has arrived at a clear draw or win.
"Trillions of positions in five years?" ++ Yes 10^17 positions.
"Each with human intervention?" ++ No. The humans start the calculations.
The humans occasionally end a calculation whenever they notice a clear draw or loss.
@4031
I give a few examples, all ICCF WC drawn games, 99% sure to be perfect games.
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164344
This ends in a 7-men endgame table base draw, no human adjudication required.
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164259
This needs human adjudication otherwise the engine must burn useless time in this clear draw.
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164319
This ends in a perpetual check, i.e. a forced 3-fold repetition. No human adjudication needed.
tygxc wrote:
@4030
"you clearly state that each positional assessment is guided by a human GM"
++ No, not at all. The humans start the calculations from meaningful positions.
That's complete nonsense. We have already established that the human intervention is necessary to determine which positions are "meaningful" and need guidance, since there is no algorithm that is 100% reliable where the positional assessment is difficult.
You continue to evade the issue.
@4033
"We have already established that the human intervention is necessary to determine which positions are "meaningful" and need guidance"
++ No, we have not. The humans launch the calculations from meaningful starting positions.
The humans occasionally end calculations in clearly drawn or won positions.
"there is no algorithm that is 100% reliable where the positional assessment is difficult"
++ Positional assessment is calculation. A positional advantage is an advantage that transforms into a material advantage or ultimately checkmate in a certain number of moves.
The humans make no positional assessments. The humans launch the calculations.
The humans end calculations in case of a clear draw or win.
"You continue to evade the issue."
++ I do not evade any issue. You do not understand and you twist my words.
Try to read and understand. It is not that hard.
haiaku wrote:
It is not going to move. That's because, despite the inevitable @tygxc's reply, chess cannot be solved in reasonable time, at the moment. But some people never concede, as you yourself noted. So what do you expect? The only thing one can do is to fight attempts of deceiving and disinformation.
It's now becoming clear that tygxc is not endeavouring to arrive at an honest assessment but merely to sell a story. The key is to ignore the side-issues and to challenge, if that's what you want to do, on the issues where he is clearly either innocently wrong or attempting to deceive.
tygxc wrote:
@4033
"We have already established that the human intervention is necessary to determine which positions are "meaningful" and need guidance"
++ No, we have not. The humans launch the calculations from meaningful starting positions.
The humans occasionally end calculations in clearly drawn or won positions.
"there is no algorithm that is 100% reliable where the positional assessment is difficult"
++ Positional assessment is calculation. A positional advantage is an advantage that transforms into a material advantage or ultimately checkmate in a certain number of moves.
The humans make no positional assessments. The humans launch the calculations.
The humans end calculations in case of a clear draw or win.
"You continue to evade the issue."
++ I do not evade any issue. You do not understand and you twist my words.
Try to read and understand. It is not that hard.
You are constantly backtracking and changing your story to suit your arguments. I'm not saying you're being deliberately dishonest but what I am completely sure about, as are many others, is that the impression your argument gives is that you are being dishonest. There is no question that you have now lost your argument, based on your previous answers, together with the fact that you made those answers in order to get out of tight corners in previous parts of the discussion but your answers are insufficient to convince anyone that you are telling the truth.
In particular, there are trillions of positions to be considered, in five years. You have admitted that the present algorithms in Stockfish are insufficient to guarantee 100% accuracy on borderline decisions re. positions. You have admitted that 100% accuracy is necessary, for a proper solution. You have accepted that a large number of human interventions would be necessary. The following are underestimates:
Trillions of positions must be assessed. Millions of positions require human input. If one GM can consider 1000 positions per day, allowing 25 hours per day and no time off for sleep or other personal requirements, that is 40 positions per hour. That isn't enough time for more than a superficial assessment, as I know you will agree. 1000 positions per GM per day for 3 GMs (stipulated by you) = 3000 per day. That's just over a million per year. Five years for 5 million positions (but we know they may not achieve 1% of that).
You claim that is going to be 100% accurate is a disconnect with reality.
Previously, you answered like this:
"In any case, the numbers cannot be achieved in 5 years."
++ Because you say so? I take the word of Sveshnikov over yours. The numbers confirm it.
"I believe that you give him too much credit."
++ I believe you do not pay him enough respect. He knew what he was talking about.
Yes, because I say so and many others also say so. It is clear that you do not respect the word of others you're arguing with. Given that, should they respect your word? Everything you have written is grotesquely self-serving, circular and based on your fantasy. You should be honest. Otherwise you will get no respect. At least CooloutAC was entertaining and perhaps he made more effort to he honest than you do. You've lost your argument, tygxc. Why not accept it?
tygxc wrote:
@4028
"when does the 5 year period start?"
++ When there is money for the cloud engines and the assistants.
Ah. How convenient. I thought when you said chess would be solved in 5 years you meant from now, or when you first made the claim. I didn't know the 5 year period starts at some random undetermined time in the future.
My teenage nephew said he is going to be a millionaire in 2 years. Now I know what he meant.
So out of curiosity why 5 years? If the clock doesn't start until some point in the future none of us know, why not say 1 year? Or even one month, or 5 days?
@4035
"tygxc is not endeavouring to arrive at an honest assessment" ++ Yes, I am
"merely to sell a story" ++ I am not selling anything. I am not even applying for an R&D grant.
"where he is clearly either innocently wrong" ++ Nowhere
"or attempting to deceive." ++ Nowhere. You on the other hand twist my words.
@4036
"you are constantly backtracking and changing your story" ++ No, I say the same thing.
"the impression your argument gives is that you are being dishonest"
++ You do not read, you do not understand and that gives you an erroneous impression.
"There is absolutely no question that you have now lost your argument"
++ There is absolutely no question that no valid couterargument has been presented.
"your answers are insufficient to convince anyone"
++ If you do not read or understand, I cannot help.
I patiently explain, answer questions, quote literature, give examples.
"there are trillions of positions to be considered, in five years" ++ Yes, 10^17.
"You have admitted that the present algorithms in Stockfish are insufficient"
++ I have calculated that there is < 1 error in 10^20 positions that the objectively correct move is not within the top 4 moves of Stockfish when running for 17 s on a 10^9 nodes/s engine, or for 17000 s on a 10^6 nodes/s desktop. There are no 10^20 positions, only 10^17 positions.
"You have accepted that a large number of human interventions would be necessary."
++ I estimate 3 grandmasters full time 40 h/week during 5 years.
"Trillions of positions must be assessed." ++ Yes, 10^17
"Millions of positions require human input."
++ No. The proof tree is expected to contain 1 billion positions, that is 10 million games.
"If one GM can consider 1000 positions per day"
++ Kramnik said he studied 10,000 games per month.
3 grandmasters * 10,000 games/month/grandmaster * 12 month/a * 5 a = 1.8 million games. Most of the games need no intervention, see examples @4033.
So intervention in 18% of games seems plausible.
"You claim that is going to be 100% accurate is a disconnect with reality."
++ Losing Chess and Checkers also got 100% accurate proofs.
"Yes, because I say so and many others also say so." ++ So if 10 players of 1700 strength say one grandmaster does not know chess analysis, then the majority is right?
"It is clear that you do not respect the word of others you're arguing with."
++ I have so far not seen one valid counterargument.
"should they respect your word?"
++ They should, but they do not, I get insults, often a sign of lacking argument.
Anyway nobody should accept my word, I am no Sveshnikov, I do not even have a master title. People should try to read and understand before dismissing without any argument.
"Everything you have written is grotesquely self-serving" ++ I do not benefit from it.
"circular" ++ no
"based on your fantasy" ++ Based on facts & figures.
"You should be honest." ++ I am. You should be too.
"Otherwise you will get no respect."
++ I get no respect from the disrespectful. I am not after respect, I am after the truth.
"You've lost your argument"
++ Chess is about winning, or losing, or drawing, an argument is about the truth.
@4037
I thought when you said chess would be solved in 5 years you meant from now.
++ Humans can walk on Mars within 10 years after allocation of resources.
"So out of curiosity why 5 years?"
++ That is what GM Sveshnikov said and that is what the facts & figures confirm.
tygxc wrote:
@4035
"tygxc is not endeavouring to arrive at an honest assessment" ++ Yes, I am
"merely to sell a story" ++ I am not selling anything. I am not even applying for an R&D grant.
"where he is clearly either innocently wrong" ++ Nowhere
"or attempting to deceive." ++ Nowhere. You on the other hand twist my words.
@4036
"you are constantly backtracking and changing your story" ++ No, I say the same thing.
"the impression your argument gives is that you are being dishonest"
++ You do not read, you do not understand and that gives you an erroneous impression.
"There is absolutely no question that you have now lost your argument"
++ There is absolutely no question that no valid couterargument has been presented.
"your answers are insufficient to convince anyone"
++ If you do not read or understand, I cannot help.
I patiently explain, answer questions, quote literature, give examples.
"there are trillions of positions to be considered, in five years" ++ Yes, 10^17.
"You have admitted that the present algorithms in Stockfish are insufficient"
++ I have calculated that there is < 1 error in 10^20 positions that the objectively correct move is not within the top 4 moves of Stockfish when running for 17 s on a 10^9 nodes/s engine, or for 17000 s on a 10^6 nodes/s desktop. There are no 10^20 positions, only 10^17 positions.
"You have accepted that a large number of human interventions would be necessary."
++ I estimate 3 grandmasters full time 40 h/week during 5 years.
"Trillions of positions must be assessed." ++ Yes, 10^17
"Millions of positions require human input."
++ No. The proof tree is expected to contain 1 billion positions, that is 10 million games.
"If one GM can consider 1000 positions per day"
++ Kramnik said he studied 10,000 games per month.
3 grandmasters * 10,000 games/month/grandmaster * 12 month/a * 5 a = 1.8 million games. Most of the games need no intervention, see examples @4033.
So intervention in 18% of games seems plausible.
"You claim that is going to be 100% accurate is a disconnect with reality."
++ Losing Chess and Checkers also got 100% accurate proofs.
"Yes, because I say so and many others also say so." ++ So if 10 players of 1700 strength say one grandmaster does not know chess analysis, then the majority is right?
"It is clear that you do not respect the word of others you're arguing with."
++ I have so far not seen one valid counterargument.
"should they respect your word?"
++ They should, but they do not, I get insults, often a sign of lacking argument.
Anyway nobody should accept my word, I am no Sveshnikov, I do not even have a master title. People should try to read and understand before dismissing without any argument.
"Everything you have written is grotesquely self-serving" ++ I do not benefit from it.
"circular" ++ no
"based on your fantasy" ++ Based on facts & figures.
"You should be honest." ++ I am. You should be too.
"Otherwise you will get no respect."
++ I get no respect from the disrespectful. I am not after respect, I am after the truth.
"You've lost your argument"
++ Chess is about winning, or losing, or drawing, an argument is about the truth.
tygxc, you're accusing me of twisting your words. I would never do that. I have nothing to gain from it. I, like some but not all others, am interested in establishing the truth.
You aren't "after the truth". That is logically impossible, since you claim to already know the truth. You are not willing to take good arguments into consideration. You merely repeat your incorrect ones, endlessly. It doesn't work. It never did but it wasn't made clear enough. You've lost your argument.
How is your Alzheimer's Disease? That's more important. I hope you are not feeling too bad.
tygxc wrote:
@4037
I thought when you said chess would be solved in 5 years you meant from now.
++ Humans can walk on Mars within 10 years after allocation of resources.
"So out of curiosity why 5 years?"
++ That is what GM Sveshnikov said and that is what the facts & figures confirm.
But none of that makes any sense. Why 5 years if the starting point is some unknown future time? We could also say humans can walk on mars within 10 minutes. If the starting point is after the spaceship has already landed there.
So it sounds like this Sveshnikov character is saying chess will be solved in 5 years. Starting in an unknown number of centuries from now when computers will be strong enough to do it.
Oh good the troll is temporarily dead.
Oh and this:
++ I have calculated that there is < 1 error in 10^20 positions that the objectively correct move is not within the top 4 moves of Stockfish when running for 17 s on a 10^9 nodes/s engine, or for 17000 s on a 10^6 nodes/s desktop. >>>
is wrong.
I know it's wrong and I don't expect you to be able to follow the inductive reasoning. It would take quite a few accurate sentences to explain why it's wrong and it isn't worth the effort. More to the point, I know you can't prove your calculations true and, of course, they are not true. This argument does not rest on my proving your calculations wrong. It rests on your proving them to be correct.
However, if you do not believe me that it's wrong, let's accept that it's right. So the number of seconds in five years, divided by your figure of 17 seconds per position is a figure somewhat less than 10 millions. So at best, using your own figures, SF can examine 10 million positions in five years.
That isn't trillions, is it? So again, you're wrong. Sorry, but you are wrong. A million engines in parallel would give less than ten trillions of positions. But the real figures are not just ten trillions, as you're well aware. Just fancy, a million engines still can't do it. And that was done giving you a very generous benefit of a very large doubt.
@4016
"The method you propose seems to have guidance from GMs who are supposed to curtail irrelevant lines."
++ Yes, the good assistants launch calculations from relevant starting points and end calculations whenever there is no more doubt about the draw or win, i.e. when they would agree on a draw or resign in a correspondence game.
"Yet we're talking about examining billions of relevant positions in five years."
++ More exactly 10^17 positions, that is 100 million billion positions.
Good.
I referred to it as "billions" of positions, which is accurate. I referred to it as "billions" for a specific reason.
"Therefore, the number of positions to be examined is far in excess of that number."
++ No, the number of positions to be examined is the number of positions to be examined.
I have no problem with that. I had used the word "relevant" and then increased the number beyond relevant. I'm not interested in discussing exact numbers because it's unnecessary. In any case, the numbers cannot be achieved in 5 years. No ifs and no buts. It's impossible.
For comparison: Checkers was solved with a proof tree of 10^7 positions and a solution tree of 10^14 positions i.e. for each position in the proof tree there were 10^7 positions examined.
"Consequently it would be necessary to develop an algorithm, to do it automatically."
++ No, human grandmasters plus Stockfish on cloud engines is enough.
Checkers was solved with a human Schaeffer with his program Chinook.
"I think Sveshnikov overlooked the fact that a reliable solution means 100% accuracy."
++ What makes you think that? I think Sveshnikov was well aware of all ramifications. He was a grandmaster and 65+ World Champion. He was a professional analyst and he had analysed before and after engines. He held a MSc in engineering. He authored several books with analysis. He even taught aspiring masters how to analyse with engines.
"There can't be a single error or it isn't a reliable proof or solution."
++ That is with every proof. That already was the case with the Four Color Theorem.
I believe that you give him too much credit. Much too much.
"The GMs couldn't guarantee 100% accuracy even if they had the time to look properly at the positions."
++ They can. They launch the calculations. They stop the calculation when they would resign or agree on a draw. ICCF correspondence players also resign lost positions and agree on a draw in drawn positions. They never resign any tenable position or agree on a draw in a won position.
"That is why your proposed solution in 5 years is definitely non-viable."
++ That is why the proposed solution in 5 years by Sveshnikov is viable.
Trillions of positions in five years? Each with human intervention? I wonder WHY you think it possible.