By "reality" I really mean external reality. The mind - reason - is also a part of reality, but it is internal and intangible, so we usually don't consider it part... still, technically it is. But no one would suggest reason is useless. It guides your interpretations, and motivates how you navigate the environment. But for it to be useful, to have meaning, it has to be wedded with something out there in reality. In this case, the actual game.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
6 hrs ago
0
#21606
Optimissed wrote:
Even so, if such a thing were to exist here, which is highly unlikely, no mention should be made of it, since it would cause offence to others. In particular, correct etiquette has it that the word "cabal" must never be mentioned. Remember that whenever accusations are made, the same accusations will be directed back at you; and quite rightly. Therefore it's best to never mention anything like that and stick to topic. Naturally, the moderators would take correct action if such a thing were to occur.
'if such a thing were to exist here' ... and then 'no mention should be made of it' ...
that suggests that if it does not exist here then its OK to mention it.
What I've been mentioning lately is a particular person (without naming him) and (not I and not you Roger) trying to make 'rules of engagement' for everyone ... his rules.
But that could get 'infectious'.
'Gatekeeping' behaviour is a nasty thing on the internet that tries to restrict who should or can speak their mind - with a further and divisive 'the cogent people versus the crackpots' and 'us verus them' attitude.
Quote from the internet:
"The healthiest move is to refuse that frame entirely and engage on your own terms"
And I'm adding from me - 'and define for oneself what 'engage' means in the context and whether and how to post with or without 'engaging'.
In other words the reverse of trying to define other people's 'rules of engagement'.
6 hrs ago
0
#21607
mpaetz wrote:
And chess still hasn't been solved!
That's right. And its good for the game.
A partial solution for checkers seems to have hurt that game somewhat ...
This is way over my head!
2 hrs ago
0
#21610
JacobLimon_5 wrote:
This is way over my head!
Its over everybody's head.
Because chess is not solved.
2 hrs ago
0
#21611
crazedrat1000 wrote:
DiogenesDue wrote:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
It would be a perfect data game but not a perfect information one, as optimised pointed out earlier. It’s not complicated, tbh. Game theory is a model and models are incomplete, they have yet to make distinctions such as these to my knowledge, but if they were to do so they’d be capable of modeling some games more fully.
...and now it's 3 navel-gazers telling everyone that game theory isn't a valid field of study. All 3 of them without a single applicable credential to their name.
Actually, no one here has suggested that. What people have suggested is that game theory is intended to model games as they're played in reality, but that this effort is incomplete. And that is just obviously the case, reality is much broader than game theory, and if we weren't generalizing the model to reality, there would be no point of the model. So the effort to advance game theory would involve progressively expanding the model. Which does not imply, as you said, that game theory is not a valid field of study. All rational disciplines are this way... math is the same way.
It's not hard to innovate a field, you just identify some limitations of how they currently do things and you expand on it. It's what any PHD student does.
TBH, I am a bit shocked that people here consider this a controversial claim, it isn't. Even though I've been shocked before by the same thing, maybe I shouldn't be, but it does shock me every time.
CR is correct. Somebody (not I not CR) strawmanning about 'not a valid field of study' and also that person trolling as usual with a pejorative noun and then complains when he's criticized.
1 hr ago
0
#21613
LeoLe2016 wrote:
chess will never be solved
Its very possible it won't be.
Not in this part of this galaxy that is ...
if they have 'chess' in other galaxies - would the various forms differ substantially from the game here?
An 8x8 board seems very plausible - short distance and long distance pieces - straight line and obliquely moving pieces - blocked pieces - taking turns - an extra-vulnerable piece - capturing ...
39 min ago
0
#21614
playerafar wrote:
LeoLe2016 wrote:
chess will never be solved
Its very possible it won't be.
Not in this part of this galaxy that is ...
if they have 'chess' in other galaxies - would the various forms differ substantially from the game here?
An 8x8 board seems very plausible - short distance and long distance pieces - straight line and obliquely moving pieces - blocked pieces - taking turns - an extra-vulnerable piece - capturing ...
maybe...
playerafar wrote:
An example of a 'perfect information' game would be tic tac toe.
There's probably a list of such games.
Chess isn't one of them.
But might be someday ... they'll have to have a pretty big computer though ...
Tripling down on the same mistake...
playerafar wrote:
Conversation from the internet:
My question:
"In ten lines or less please tell me something about how 'gatekeeping' works on the internet. 'Gatekeeping' in its negative figurative sense."
AI response:
"Here’s a tight, ten‑lines‑or‑less take on negative gatekeeping online:
It happens when people claim the “right” to decide who belongs in a community or fandom.
Gatekeepers police knowledge, taste, identity, or experience to exclude others.
They often demand obscure expertise as an entry fee, even when it’s unnecessary.
Social media amplifies this by rewarding performative authority and call‑outs.
It can create hostile spaces where newcomers feel unwelcome or intimidated.
Gatekeeping usually protects status, not quality or authenticity.
At its worst, it reinforces bias—who “counts” often mirrors existing power structures."
-----------------
I then continued - somewhat more specifically - like this:
My question:
"I've seen three people who constantly push 'its the cogent people versus the crackpots' - one of them constantly keeps making new accounts on the website for trolling purposes - another constantly accuses people of that which he does and gets caught doing so - and the third one backs the two of them up - enabling them. Please comment in 12 lines or less."
AI response:
"That trio is basically running a textbook gatekeeping ecosystem:
The “new‑account troll” manufactures noise and disruption to unsettle others.
The “projection guy” flips accusations to keep everyone on the defensive.
The “enabler” provides social cover so the first two seem more legitimate.
Together, they create the illusion of a coherent in‑group policing “cogency.”
The rhetoric of “cogent vs. crackpot” becomes a shield for bad‑faith behavior.
It’s less about standards and more about maintaining control of the narrative.
Their dynamic works only if others accept the frame they’re imposing.
The healthiest move is to refuse that frame entirely and engage on your own terms."
-----------------------
Thanks for the blatant example of how you give the AI fake narrative to get the results you are looking for. If you had any confidence in yourself, you would feed the AI unfiltered quotes from both sides...but then the AI would point out you are almost always in the wrong.
Your delusions have expanded to 3 now, I see.
6 min ago
0
#21617
Saying “never” and meaning it is a huge statment. Lets look at it. So far Chess is likely 0,0001% “solved”. In mabey 100 years it Will be 0,001% solved but only a GM whould use this knowledge. No advanced player or under elite player would ever try and study more than 20 moves into a Line.
-You don’t need to read all of this
Next subject will chess ever be solved? The answer is we don’t know.
Next question can chess realistically be solved? Yes with AI and chess computers it whould be possible to, solve chess. My guess whould be 200 years into the future but who knows.
-You don’t need to read all of this
Next subject will chess ever be solved? The answer is we don’t know.
Next question can chess realistically be solved? Yes with AI and chess computers it whould be possible to, solve chess. My guess whould be 200 years into the future but who knows.
It would be a perfect data game but not a perfect information one, as optimised pointed out earlier. It’s not complicated, tbh. Game theory is a model and models are incomplete, they have yet to make distinctions such as these to my knowledge, but if they were to do so they’d be capable of modeling some games more fully.
...and now it's 3 navel-gazers telling everyone that game theory isn't a valid field of study. All 3 of them without a single applicable credential to their name.
Actually, no one here has suggested that. What people have suggested is that game theory is intended to model games as they're played in reality, but that this effort is incomplete. And that is just obviously the case, reality is much broader than game theory, and if we weren't generalizing the model to reality, there would be no point of the model. So the effort to advance game theory would involve progressively expanding the model. Which does not imply, as you said, that game theory is not a valid field of study. All rational disciplines are this way... math is the same way.
It's not hard to innovate a field, you just identify some limitations of how they currently do things and you expand on it. It's what any PHD student does.
TBH, I am a bit shocked that people here consider this a controversial claim, it isn't. Even though I've been shocked before by the same thing, maybe I shouldn't be, but it does shock me every time.