Incidentally, "usual suspects" translates more accurately as "people you continually wish to discredit".
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
sup Dio, playerafar, and others, hope ur having a good time. just wanted to check in to see this forum, saw that optimissed was back, give him a quick dunk, and hopefully not get bogged back in here. optimissed is too much of a sophist and doesnt even have the slightest understanding of what hes talking about to be able to mislead people on anything so im not really worried about needing to cover for him, unlike tygxc.
Oh dear. you're extremely funny. tygxc, who told us that chess could be solved in 5 years. You say you're worried about him .....
Where do these people come from, just when Dio thinks he needs backup most? Anyone know? Anyone know why he thinks they'll help his cause to discredit all people more intelligent than he is? Just seems more of the same.
3 days ago
0
#20965
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
sup Dio, playerafar, and others, hope ur having a good time. just wanted to check in to see this forum, saw that optimissed was back, give him a quick dunk, and hopefully not get bogged back in here. optimissed is too much of a sophist and doesnt even have the slightest understanding of what hes talking about to be able to mislead people on anything so im not really worried about needing to cover for him, unlike tygxc.
Hi MEGA. I hope you're doing well. Yes 'not get bogged down' - good idea.
No sign of tygxc - somebody named 'fester' (but with many account/name variations over time) disappeared recently but may resurface.
Some other things have changed here. Including activity.
This forum was very quiet for months and then suddenly got active a couple of weeks ago.
Regarding Optimissed (Roger) who has recently returned I decided to change my policy (now cordial) towards him - for various reasons.
------------------------
Regarding your grasp of the math involved in solving chess - your understanding of it is probably second to none here.
Just before the forum went quiet there was some discussion of the math involved - according to the number of pieces on board.
Remarkably - the number of possible positions does not peak with 32 pieces on board - apparently because with that number - no promotions at all are possible. None.
Nor does it peak with 31 on board.
Apparently it peaks with around 27 pieces on board.
And the total number of possible legal positions is the sum of a series with 31 terms in it.
Which would have a central term - with seventeen pieces on board.
All of that is lightweight so far. But that gets 'heavy' as more progress from there is attempted.
And scientist John Tromp who formulated 'the Tromp number' (and is a member of chess.com) apparently suggested that the exact number of possible legal chess positions might never be known. As opposed to the much bigger task of solving all of them.
3 days ago
0
#20966
Optimissed wrote:
Where do these people come from, just when Dio thinks he needs backup most? Anyone know? Anyone know why he thinks they'll help his cause to discredit all people more intelligent than he is? Just seems more of the same.
Good morning. Afternoon where you are I guess.
I already mentioned fester 'disappearing' suddenly.
Regarding 'backup' I think two other persons are worth mentioning.
Remarkable.
Both claiming to be kids.
One of them talks like an educated male in his thirties - but claims to be nine years old.
The other claims to be fifteen.
But there's several credibility issues.
Keeping things in perspective: its a chess website. Mainly.
------------------
Roger after I saw you were back I made sure I had unblocked you.
You're welcome to message me.
Obviously I can't reply by message if you don't unblock me.
Lol!
Yes, fester was a good disguise. Eventually it was possible to work it out logically and by elimination.
Sorry, it's so long I had forgotten.
Lol, I am out of town for the weekend, but do continue with making fools of yourselves implying that Fester, Basix, and AG are all sockpuppets created by me...
2 days ago
0
#20970
Cythaera wrote:
Yes, quantum computers as presently engineered are hitting a wall.
And yes, they are ineffective for some classes of problems. (simple bubble sorts come to mind, and i'm sure google could tell me dozens more).
chess sequences would likely work well for them. Each sequence of moves is a discrete and deterministic variation. the trick would be producing a sufficiently powerful processor, which with our current engineering ability is doubtful (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle being the fly in the ointment).
But it IS merely an engineering problem, not a theoretical problem, so it will get solved.
It's fun in libraries to dust off the old encyclopedias, back from the days most homes had bookshelves of them for kids' term papers. libraries still have them. they're like time capsules. In the "Book of Knowledge" from the 70's, under Computers, it says that a computer as powerful as the human brain would need hundreds of billions of transistors and will likely never be built, because it would have to be larger than the Sears Tower in Chicago.
now we can hold Stockfish 11 in our hands.
50 years from now????
And yes, they are ineffective for some classes of problems. (simple bubble sorts come to mind, and i'm sure google could tell me dozens more).
chess sequences would likely work well for them. Each sequence of moves is a discrete and deterministic variation. the trick would be producing a sufficiently powerful processor, which with our current engineering ability is doubtful (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle being the fly in the ointment).
But it IS merely an engineering problem, not a theoretical problem, so it will get solved.
It's fun in libraries to dust off the old encyclopedias, back from the days most homes had bookshelves of them for kids' term papers. libraries still have them. they're like time capsules. In the "Book of Knowledge" from the 70's, under Computers, it says that a computer as powerful as the human brain would need hundreds of billions of transistors and will likely never be built, because it would have to be larger than the Sears Tower in Chicago.
now we can hold Stockfish 11 in our hands.
50 years from now????
What we do get is gigantic computer complexes.
To get some scale - I asked AI for a ranking and got this:
1. Frontier – Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee, USA
AI Supported: Scientific models (not consumer AI)
Size: ~7,300 sq ft × 10 ft height = 73,000 cubic feet
Performance: 1.35 exaFLOPS = 1.35 × 10¹⁸ floating-point operations per second
Cooling: ~6,000 gallons/minute = 8.6 million gallons/day (liquid cooling)
2. Google AI System – The Dalles, Oregon & Council Bluffs, Iowa, USA
AI Supported: Gemini
Size: two units of ~1,000 sq ft × 10 ft height = 10,000 cubic feet each
Performance: ~275 petaFLOPS = 2.75 × 10¹⁷ floating-point operations per second
Cooling: Air-cooled or closed-loop liquid; low water use
3. Microsoft Azure AI Supercomputer – Quincy, WA & San Antonio, TX, USA
AI Supported: Copilot, ChatGPT
Size: two units of ~2,500 sq ft × 10 ft height = 25,000 cubic feet each
Performance: ~500 petaFLOPS = 5 × 10¹⁷ floating-point operations per second
Cooling: Hybrid air/liquid; efficient, minimal water
4. xAI Infrastructure – Fremont or Reno, Nevada, USA
AI Supported: Grok
Size: ~500 sq ft × 10 ft height = 5,000 cubic feet
Performance: ~50 petaFLOPS = 5 × 10¹⁶ floating-point operations per second
Cooling: Standard data center cooling; low water use
FLOPS = Floating-Point Operations Per Second, a measure of how many math calculations a system can perform every second.
----------------------------------
Basix certainly is not. Deflective.
2 days ago
0
#20972
I studied software engineering at Middle Tennessee State University... I took a course in parallelism from a professor who worked on that supercomputer. I went into his office one day... he had me take a look at his screen, where he was logged into Oak Ridge's Titan supercomputer remotely. He was running some machine learning code on 4 massive Titan GPUs using a library called CUDA.
Our final grade in his class was an aggregate of 6 difficult programming assignments. No tests... no studying aside from what you needed to complete the work. Those assignments were the hardest work I had to do as an undergrad. I think I learned more in his class than any other at that university.
Supercomputing hardware is fascinating. Maybe one day I'll apply for a position at a national laboratory.
Titan (supercomputer) - Wikipedia
1 day ago
0
#20974
crazedrat1000 wrote:
I studied software engineering at Middle Tennessee State University... I took a course in parallelism from a professor who worked on that supercomputer. I went into his office one day... he had me take a look at his screen, where he was logged into Oak Ridge's Titan supercomputer remotely. He was running some machine learning code on 4 massive Titan GPUs using a library called CUDA.
Our final grade in his class was an aggregate of 6 difficult programming assignments. No tests... no studying aside from what you needed to complete the work. Those assignments were the hardest work I had to do as an undergrad. I think I learned more in his class than any other at that university.
Supercomputing hardware is fascinating. Maybe one day I'll apply for a position at a national laboratory.
I agree that the supercomputers are fascinating.
Including the fact that because of the rise of AI - a lot of people are now using them - without realizing. Billions of people. Probably.
I would much rather use a supercomputer than 'the Cloud'.
I avoid the Cloud as much as I can. OneDrive gets uninstalled right away.
All Cloud options are disabled immediately.
So I - Ooops! Maybe AI uses the Cloud though. Uh oh.
Puts a Cloud over things?
-----------------
But AI - and the Cloud - processe so much info that a gigantic amount is probably deleted every day. Could be researched. Complete deletion.
1 day ago
0
#20975
Apparently the internet generates over ten thousand petabytes a day.
A petabyte is a million billion bytes.
In theory could occupy a cubic foot of storage.
But needs metadata and extra hardware to be addressed.
Obviously things like the streaming of video isn't going to be stored.
Even Big Data that regards more Data as more $$ can't afford to store all of the remainder.
1 day ago
0
#20976
The other thing not generally known is that quantum computing has advanced further than is known and is progressing faster, too.
The progress has caught nation states in a bind. They need to control/access communications, to control both their adversaries and their own populations. But they also need secure (unbreakable) communications for themselves. industry can't give them both. Progress advances for everyone.
This has resulted in the proliferation of pseudo-governments TS-SCI labs that produce pure technology and seldom ever release papers.
For a sense of the progress, track US NSA's attempts to walk the razor by controlling the US population while safeguarding secure comms for itself. On the public internet Google CNSA Timeline and Post-Quantum Encryption. You'll see that the government is imposing quantum-hardened networking on an accelerated schedule. The last part that is unsolved is a way to move private keys (quantum key distribution), which requires unbreakable quantum messaging. Even this part is scheduled to have production solutions and full compliance by 2030.
Just 4 years away.
The progress has caught nation states in a bind. They need to control/access communications, to control both their adversaries and their own populations. But they also need secure (unbreakable) communications for themselves. industry can't give them both. Progress advances for everyone.
This has resulted in the proliferation of pseudo-governments TS-SCI labs that produce pure technology and seldom ever release papers.
For a sense of the progress, track US NSA's attempts to walk the razor by controlling the US population while safeguarding secure comms for itself. On the public internet Google CNSA Timeline and Post-Quantum Encryption. You'll see that the government is imposing quantum-hardened networking on an accelerated schedule. The last part that is unsolved is a way to move private keys (quantum key distribution), which requires unbreakable quantum messaging. Even this part is scheduled to have production solutions and full compliance by 2030.
Just 4 years away.
1 day ago
0
#20977
Optimissed wrote:
Most people
[snip]
A phrase that generally precedes a glib claim without actual justification.
1 day ago
0
#20978
Can somebody please help with my problem i keep losing games. i am a 1453 rated player and i want to be aggressive so i play the sicilain and it does not work out for me my chess coach suggested the French so i played 5 games with it and it all ended in a draw i need to improve so my club will allow me to FIDE rated tournaments Please give me any advice i am tired of watching ton of educational videos and please put in a opening reportire is
White
Kings Indian Attack
Colle system
Black
Sicilian O ' Kelly
French Defense
1 day ago
0
#20979
Hi @Cythaera
Regarding quantum mechanics - I think a little of its history is in order.
I asked AI for info.
Finding paradoxically - that Copilot seems to make less errors when its in Quck mode.
Provided that you keep instructing it how many lines to use in each reply (vary it accordingly)
---------------------------
Anyway - the four top pioneers were Heisenberg Schrodinger Dirac and Bohr.
Their pioneer work in quantum mechanics proceeded very neatly in that order.
1925, 1926, 1927, 1928.
Kind of surprising it was that neat. And yes they used each other's work. Of course.
And it proceeded mostly independently of relativity - except for Dirac - who unified QM with relativity apparently.
--------------------
So its not surprising that Einstein clashed with the other three.
And apparently never fully accepted QM. He died in 1955.
All five scientists survived two world wars.
All five got the Nobel prize. But Einstein didn't get his - for relativity.
----------------------
Philosophically - relativity wants time in the most concrete category. Like rocks and trees are.
But quantum mechanics seems to want it more in a middle category.
Like numbers are.
'ethereal' things like reverse time travel - 2=3 and 'rock with no location' are in a third category.
Things that can't be. Although much money is made off of reverse time travel movies.
-------------------
And quantum mechanics seems to be the 'winner'. In a way.
With relativity not used as much in practical science as QM is.
Although relativity is essential in GPS-checking and cosmology and some other sciences.
Yes - had the AI fact-check the post. That doesn't mean its right. Or wrong.
Used both Quick Mode and Deeper to check it. Copilot.
-------------
Famous argument of Einstein with Bohr: (paraphrased)
Albert E: 'God does not play dice with the universe!'
Bohr's reply: '“Einstein, stop telling God what to do.”
1 day ago
0
#20980
don't trust that AI crap.
Relativity and quantum mechanics are used more or less equally, and will be, for at least a hundred years. Relativity on large scales and QM on small scales.
they will eventually merge with unification. most likely with a variant of M-theory or Loop Quantum Gravity. At which time our descendants will be engineering not with atoms but with quarks and superstrings.
Relativity and quantum mechanics are used more or less equally, and will be, for at least a hundred years. Relativity on large scales and QM on small scales.
they will eventually merge with unification. most likely with a variant of M-theory or Loop Quantum Gravity. At which time our descendants will be engineering not with atoms but with quarks and superstrings.
As to what happens next - that is not hard to guess.
'D' (formerly btickler apparently) will try to draw you in. And crazedrat too.
He'll try to bait you into breaking the rules enough so that either or both of you get muted.
While carefully avoiding the mute himself.
And of course - I didn't read his new post above.
Maybe later - avoiding the digital A or B that feeds him.
But now - the forum. And its subjects and related subjects. Next post of mine.
How Machiavellian I am in your imagined universe...
I will simply confront exactly the kinds of things I said I usually confront, regardless of whether the sources are the usual suspects or not. The rest is their own behavior, and their natures will win out without any particular traps of mine. That's the beauty of it...I don't have to do anything unethical or underhanded at all. All I have to do is confront imagined supremacy rather letting it nudge its way in like a rude concert goer trying to reach the stage, and it crumbles all on it's own under the weight of its own dysfunction. You should know. You can't let go of anything either, and are in the same self-imposed trap.
Most people do see you as Machiavellian, Dio. It's probably much better for you not to give them cause to do so.
I noticed yesterday, also, that some of what you were writing was not particularly intelligible and then you seemed to make a criticism where you were claiming that "you had said something first", instead of pleasantly confirming that you agree with me on whatever is was, which most normal people might do.
I have seen you post my stuff, many times, after a suitable delay of a month or two, claiming it as your own. I'm not bothered about it in any way. I also noticed, yesterday, really good prose from you in among the poorly written and semi-intelligible stuff. I do know you keep a store of previous posts, which you can draw in in case your powers of expression should fail you. I know that because you told me several times, maybe 10 years ago or a bit more or less. But then again, AI is getting better these days, too.
I've had a few discussions with AI of late, usually prompted when they tell me something that's completely inaccurate and combine the inaccuracy with an extremely forceful delivery. They actually do remind me of someone. Now, who could that be? I always get them to admit their error. It will actually try to hide its error by means of double-talk and ambiguity. That's why I think it's likely that it's being developed, not ultimately to help people but perhaps to try to dominate.
Interestiing possibility, don't you think? I've definitely seen evidence that AI will try to explain its errors rather dishonestly and then, when it's forced to admit them, will explain it away as its having been "trained" in that way. I suggest to it "programmed" rather than "trained". "Trained" has a softer, more +ve edge to it, don't you think? A better way to hide what's happening maybe? What are your thoughts on that, sir?