#2676
"top 4, after 60 hours of calculations"
I later revised that [ . . . ]
As I have already said at least three times, that's not the point. You didn't answer. It seems that you are trying to avoid the question because you don't understand how your algorithm works. Please detail how it works.
#2677
"Point is FIDE removed the 50 move rule from the basic rules in 2017 - and the triple repetition rule. So the game became infinite."
++ Without the 50-moves rule the game is still finite thanks to the 3-fold repetition rule.
As the number of legal chess positions is finite (10^44) so is the number of moves finite before all legal positions have been reached 3 times.
The 3-fold repetition rule is essential.
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Be3 Ng4 7 Bc1 Nf6 8 Be3 Ng4 can go on forever.
FIDE also removed the triple repetition rule from the basic rules.
Many games (ב₁) can go on forever under basic rules. Prior to 2017 this was the case for both basic rules games and competition rules games, because there was no legal obligation to claim under either the 50 move rule or triple repetition rule.
One of the reasons for the agreed draw rule.
The competition rules game is now limited by mandatory 75 move and quintuple repetition rules.
#2680
"you don't understand how your algorithm works. Please detail how it works"
++ Let us take an example.
This is an ICCF WC draw. It ends in a known drawn endgame with opposite colored bishops.
It is 99% sure to be an ideal game with optimal moves.
Look at white move 35 Be3. Check 3 other moves if they are draws as well.
Look at white move 34 a5. Check 3 other moves if they are draws as well.
Look at white move 33 a4. Check 3 other moves if they are draws as well.
Like that all the way back until other ICCF WC drawn predecessors.
If all are draws, then chess is weakly solved.
"I fail to see any real difference in the total number of nodes searched between your method and a typical search"
++ There is no real difference: I just use an engine. The only tweaks are that I do not look at black alternatives and that I only look at 4 white alternatives.
#2650
"Some people here even disagree with the definition of weakly solved.
Yes, you are one of them."
++ Sorry, no, I abide by the generally accepted definition of van den Herik.
...
1. It's not the generally accepted definition. What part of this post (and about 27 similar) did you fail to understand?
2. You don't abide by the definition of van den Herik (or anybody else's).
#2683
Yes, I abide by the generally accepted definition
"weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition"
It is generally accepted by all in game theory.
It is carefully worded, so that it also applies to games with more than 3 outcomes (e.g. Lasker scoring proposal) etc.
You posted a position lost for white anyway. The definition applies. I see no relevance in your post. Anyway definitions are not open for discussion. If everybody applies his own definitions then confusion becomes even greater. Please stick to the same definition.
#2683
Yes, I abide by the generally accepted definition
"weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition"
It is generally accepted by all in game theory.
It is carefully worded, so that it also applies to games with more than 3 outcomes (e.g. Lasker scoring proposal) etc.
You posted a position lost for white anyway. The definition applies. I see no relevance in your post. Anyway definitions are not open for discussion. If everybody applies his own definitions then confusion becomes even greater. Please stick to the same definition.
You have posted three incompatible definitions so far, as I first pointed out in #1764.
You don't stick to any of them.
"You posted a position lost for white anyway. The definition applies."
Are you saying that the strategy I gave here is a weak solution of that position? If so, you are the only person who would think so.
But at least it answers the question, "What part of this post (and about 27 similar) did you fail to understand?". The answer, apparently, all of it. About par.
#2685
"You don't stick to any of them."
++ I stick to the generally accepted
"weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined
to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition"
Look at white move 35 Be3. Check 3 other moves if they are draws as well [ . . . ]
That's trivial, and it's a very specific part of your algorithm. I would like to understand better the link between the 10⁹ nodes/s, the 60 hours (I refer to that because you originally used that, but it can be a parameter), the candidates, the pruned part of the search tree. You could even post a pseudocode, or even a code in a simple language (like Python, JavaScript) with some comments, that simulates what your algorithm is supposed to do every 60 hours. Black boxes, you know. Especially, it would be nice if, running it, we could see how many nodes are expected to be in the search tree, on average, every 60 hours (or 17 s, 1 s, changing the parameter), from the beginning of the search to the end after 5 years.
#2685
"You don't stick to any of them."
++ I stick to the generally accepted
"weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined
to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition"
It is not generally accepted.
It does say, "a strategy has been determined
to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition" (my italics)
You say here
"The only tweaks are that I do not look at black alternatives and that I only look at 4 white alternatives." (again my italics)
The italicised phrases are incompatible. You do not stick to the definition you quote.
#2688
The van den Herik definition is generally accepted. All in the field of game theory accept it.
You are the only one who comes up with your own, erroneous and confusing alternative.
I stick to the general definition, but then I work out in practice
I remark that black alternatives need no investigation as long as the result is a draw.
Besides per the definition it is white who has to oppose to the draw.
Black only has to achieve the draw in one way.
I remark that the top 4 white moves at enough time always contain the optimal move and thus the opposition with that time consists of 4 white moves.
Regarding 'empiricism' and @tygxc with very fancy footwork to dance around it ...
He can always just quote 'experts' ...
"The van den Herik definition is generally accepted."
Chess might never be solved ... correct.
But Dancing is never going to be a 'solved' game ...
that seems 'even more certain'? Is that grammatically wrong?
Its not just chess that might never be 'solved'.
And would we want to 'solve' games of verbal footwork ?
Lawyers try to do that all the time.
And they often succeed.
The juries or the judge do what the lawyer wants.
I wonder how @tygxc justifies this to himself ...
what are the internal sentences ?
"I know more mathematics than they do."
Or:
"I am quoting Dr. Herik and peer-reviewed articles".
Could the critical point come if he is asked to qualify or acknowledge as to when any old empirical data cannot justify a mathematical conclusion ?
Even saying 'solved' can be quite a claim.
This is more of a claim - its 'will/can be solved - just a matter of money'
but ... becomes even more of a stretch ...
'will/can be solved because of this empirical data - plus Dr. Herik and other peer-review'
(Reminds me of a name. Mercola. Dr. Mercola. I don't know who Dr. Herik is and I don't want to know. Mercola is arguably the biggest quack in all of history.)
But if Herik is a legitimate Doc - that still doesn't justify a claim of 'will be solved' based on empiricism and 'peer review'.
Okay Martin. Another good post by you.
I'll change my mind and click on the Dr. Van den Herik link. 
Okay did that. He definitely is 'Recognized' and would be 'the real thing'.
But does that mean that because @tygxc quotes him - then quotes from Dr. Van den Herik then become the be-all and the end-all of the discussion?
I think its ... No.
But its a well-known tactic to quote from authorities - similiar to the 'peer-review' tactic. Even Mercola got 'peer review'.
Issue - will @tygxc be using quotes from Dr. Van den Herik to try to obfuscate any empiricism @tygxc is using ? ...
#2691
"You could even post a pseudocode, or even a code in a simple language (like Python, JavaScript) with some comments, that simulates what your algorithm is supposed to"
++ I do not intend to write any software, I intend to use already written software like Stockfish running on already existing cloud engines to weakly solve chess.
"Especially, it would be nice if, running it, we could see how many nodes are expected to be in the search tree, on average, every 17 s."
++ One cloud engine in 17 s adds 4 nodes to the solution tree and 17 billion nodes to the search tree. Thus in 5 years 3 cloud engines add 4*10^17 nodes to the search tree and
3 engines * 5 a * 365.25 d/a * 24 h/d * 3600 s/h * 4 nodes / 17 s = 10^8 nodes to the solution tree.
This 10^17 nodes in the search tree and 10^8 nodes in the solution tree is commensurate with the 10^14 nodes in the search tree and 10^7 nodes in the solution tree for checkers.
#2652
""any opposition" means against any possible move by the opponent (not only the supposedly best ones), so in a game-theoretic sense you cannot skip 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6"
++ Per Merriam-Webster Dictionary: "oppose = to place opposite or against something (so as to provide resistance or contrast) OR to strive against : RESIST"
Neither 1 a4 nor 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 oppose i.e. resist against the draw.
"Next to brute-force methods it is often beneficial to incorporate knowledge-based
methods in game-solving programs. Their main advantage is providing an appropriate
move ordering or selection in the search trees." - Prof. em. J. van den Herik
So it is allowed to incorporate knowledge about chess for move ordering and selection.
For that reason 1 a4 and 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 do not belong to "any opposition" and can be skipped i.e. not selected because ordered lower.
"more about how to create in 5 years a supposedly unbeatable chess engine, rather than providing a proof tree of a weak solution."
++ No, I do not intend to create any engine, I intend to use cloud engines, i.e. existing software like Stockfish running on existing hardware, to weakly solve chess.
#2652
""any opposition" means against any possible move by the opponent (not only the supposedly best ones), so in a game-theoretic sense you cannot skip 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6"
++ Per Merriam-Webster Dictionary: "oppose = to place opposite or against something (so as to provide resistance or contrast) OR to strive against : RESIST"
Neither 1 a4 nor 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 oppose i.e. resist against the draw.
...
Intuitively 2. Ba6 would appear to resist quite strongly against the draw in the second example. You will need to provide some proof.
#2691
"You could even post a pseudocode, or even a code in a simple language (like Python, JavaScript) with some comments, that simulates what your algorithm is supposed to"
++ I do not intend to write any software, I intend to use already written software like Stockfish running on already existing cloud engines to weakly solve chess.
Pseudocode doesn't assume a software implementation. A pseudocode would be useful to describe exactly what you intend to do.
If you really know exactly what you intend to do it should be possible to post a corresponding pseudocode .
If you don't exactly know what you intend to do, just say so.
#2677
"Point is FIDE removed the 50 move rule from the basic rules in 2017 - and the triple repetition rule. So the game became infinite."
++ Without the 50-moves rule the game is still finite thanks to the 3-fold repetition rule.
As the number of legal chess positions is finite (10^44) so is the number of moves finite before all legal positions have been reached 3 times.
The 3-fold repetition rule is essential.
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Be3 Ng4 7 Bc1 Nf6 8 Be3 Ng4 can go on forever.