We have very little in common. Probably both have two legs.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Optimissed wrote:
I mentioned that you're the most able but that doesn't mean I think I could learn much from you. You're just as unfocussed as the rest, because you shouldn't need me to define it *again*. Indeed, if you could think for yourself, you wouldn't need it to be defined at all, because you'd be able to work it out. There's a reason it's a clique.
I don't see how there's any notion of a clique between people that don't interact outside of public thread posts, really.
That would imply a pre-existing relationship, but the common focal points for this theoretical clique historically would seem to be Tygxc and yourself, or more accurately, the ummm...steadfast and closely-held ideas you both post month in and month out. Maybe you have something in common...but I wouldn't call you two a partnership 
.
Anybody impartially looking at this thread would have a laugh. Not knowing each other socially is irrelevant. People form groups, even online. Whatever differences you have between each other, you all close ranks when you're faced with explanations you refuse to even try to understand. I'm not suggesting there's an ability to understand though. Basically no-one can think for themselves and everyone needs the support of the rest of the group.
Anyhow, all the best to you all. Every so often I've tried to explain my conception of how this can be resolved. It isn't from lack of trying on my part. Must be something you lack. Goodnight.
Mar 14, 2022
0
#2225
Elroch wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
[snip]
The checkers proof consisted of solving 19 three-move openings, leading to a determination of the starting position’s value: a draw. Although there are roughly 300 three-move openings, over 100 are duplicates (move transpositions). The rest can be proven [not have been proven] to be irrelevant by an Alpha Beta search.
[snip]
This point may have been missed earlier. I continue to assert there is a genuine weak solution of checkers. It permits (game-theoretic) optimal play as black or white.
You could be right. Do you know which version of checkers has been weakly solved?
IMHO, there is only one possible interpretation of "can be proven" there - that they have been proven. It's just a matter of showing that the knowledge that arises about positions for the 19 openings imply the results for the others by showing there is always a transposition to some position dealt with in the 19 openings available. (So you never actually need the tablebase to solve all the other openings).
OK, but my point was that the first quote seems to suggest that applied to only about 100 of 300 openings.
If the proofs were not available, such a claim would be outrageous - believing that there is a proof would have no more substance than guessing that checkers is a draw.
I believe that in matches one of the 19 openings is preset. If so, an algorithm for drawing from each of those positions would be a weak solution of that game. It comes back to which game of checkers has been solved.
But having spent about a quarter of my working life debugging system problems I probably have a somewhat jaundiced view of the probability of a decades long computerised project involving vast amounts of data producing exact results at the end anyway.
Some op is sure to drop a crate of beer onto one of your tape cartridges at some point and sweep it silently into the bin.
With tablebases, for a given objective, it is, in principle, possible to produce completely independent versions - different people, languages, systems and check for a complete match at the end. With a weak solution two totally independent solutions may match nowhere at all, even if they're both correct, so verification would be a major problem.
For me to be convinced, I'd really like to see more details of the steps taken to eliminate errors than just "This site can't be reached".
Mar 14, 2022
0
#2226
"With a weak solution two totally independent solutions may match nowhere at all, even if they're both correct, so verification would be a major problem."
Which would happen to some extent anyway - with weak solutions.
Since strong solutions are only widely available up to 7 pieces onboard -
and it seems to be much agreed in the forum that chess isn't going to be 'strongly solved' in the foreseeable future - if ever -
the forum has been mostly about 'weak solutions'.
Candidate general definition of 'weak solution':
Any solution that isn't a strong one.
But that leaves a lot of range.
And many differing possible definitions of particular 'weak solutions'.
Different parties will want their 'weak solution' and its particular definition.
And to push it. As we've been seeing here.
Mar 14, 2022
0
#2227
btickler wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
I mentioned that you're the most able but that doesn't mean I think I could learn much from you. You're just as unfocussed as the rest, because you shouldn't need me to define it *again*. Indeed, if you could think for yourself, you wouldn't need it to be defined at all, because you'd be able to work it out. There's a reason it's a clique.
I don't see how there's any notion of a clique between people that don't interact outside of public thread posts, really.
That would imply a pre-existing relationship, but the common focal points for this theoretical clique historically would seem to be Tygxc and yourself, or more accurately, the ummm...steadfast and closely-held ideas you both post month in and month out. Maybe you have something in common...but I wouldn't call you two a partnership .
They Definitely have something in common. Intensely.
'Better than all of you' coming from each of them.
(while so far from the case)
From one of them - the 'better than' is asserted periodically.
But from the other - an intense instance of Explicitly.
"I am pretty sure I know more about mathematics than any of you, including the man with the 2 degrees."
Immortal. Definitive. The Keeper. From page 108 here. Currently post #2150. Could be framed and Enshrined. Including without the '2 degrees part.' Has far-reaching implications.
Others have been pointing out his crass mistakes -
but he just keeps repeating them ...
revealing not just ineptitude - but Deficiency.
He would appear to be much younger than the 'other' though.
Is it tragic in a way ? There's a word ... 'pathos' I think it is.
Another word is 'poignant'.
Young. So much time ahead of him.
How could he have possibly got this way ?
The answer might lie in the effects of the internet.
And how some of those born into it might be extra vulnerable.
Ironic and Hilarious that the other one attacks him? 
Some kind of jealousy perhaps.
Regarding the right to talk back to such persons -
we're to have a "The Emperor has no clothes" situation ?
I don't think so.
Fortunately - the website doesn't seem to be run that way.
Mar 14, 2022
0
#2228
Elroch wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
[snip]
The checkers proof consisted of solving 19 three-move openings, leading to a determination of the starting position’s value: a draw. Although there are roughly 300 three-move openings, over 100 are duplicates (move transpositions). The rest can be proven [not have been proven] to be irrelevant by an Alpha Beta search.
[snip]
This point may have been missed earlier. I continue to assert there is a genuine weak solution of checkers. It permits (game-theoretic) optimal play as black or white.
IMHO, there is only one possible interpretation of "can be proven" there - that they have been proven. It's just a matter of showing that the knowledge that arises about positions for the 19 openings imply the results for the others by showing there is always a transposition to some position dealt with in the 19 openings available. (So you never actually need the tablebase to solve all the other openings).
If the proofs were not available, such a claim would be outrageous - believing that there is a proof would have no more substance than guessing that checkers is a draw.
Relationship of 'can be proven' to 'has been proven'
looks solid.
With 'has not been proven' also factored.
Chess has not been solved.
So there is no proof that it can be.
Is that the same as 'could be' ? No.
The number of possible chess positions is finite.
So its argued that chess could be solved. Hypothetically.
But 'can be' is different. Because its also not proven that there will be the resources and the needed time to get that job done.
Like - millions of years of time! Or trillions of years.
Optimissed wrote:
Anybody impartially looking at this thread would have a laugh. Not knowing each other socially is irrelevant. People form groups, even online. Whatever differences you have between each other, you all close ranks when you're faced with explanations you refuse to even try to understand. I'm not suggesting there's an ability to understand though. Basically no-one can think for themselves and everyone needs the support of the rest of the group.
Anyhow, all the best to you all. Every so often I've tried to explain my conception of how this can be resolved. It isn't from lack of trying on my part. Must be something you lack. Goodnight.
There's a much simpler explanation for what you are rationalizing here.
#2245
"I don't see how there's any notion of a clique between people that don't interact outside of public thread posts, really. That would imply a pre-existing relationship, but the common focal points for this theoretical clique historically would seem to be Tygxc and yourself, or more accurately, the ummm...steadfast and closely-held ideas you both post month in and month out."
MARatingen 860
Btickler 1559
Haiaku 1667
Playerafar 1709
Elroch 1779
Optimissed 1890
Tygxc 2044
What could that relationship be?
#2249
"He would appear to be much younger than the 'other' though."
Thank you for this compliment. You made my day.
tygxc wrote:
#2245
"I don't see how there's any notion of a clique between people that don't interact outside of public thread posts, really. That would imply a pre-existing relationship, but the common focal points for this theoretical clique historically would seem to be Tygxc and yourself, or more accurately, the ummm...steadfast and closely-held ideas you both post month in and month out."
MARatingen 860
Btickler 1559
Haiaku 1667
Playerafar 1709
Elroch 1779
Optimissed 1890
Tygxc 2044
What could that relationship be?
I guess you forgot that Pfren, BlueEmu, and Llama...all of whom are rated significantly higher than you, also refuted your premise here and on other threads, so that "relationship" is not valid. See...this is why you can't seem to get where you want to go...selective myopia.
You are also using rapid ratings of human beings, and pretending they should have some meaningful impact on understanding how chess can be solved by engines or some future technology. They do not. There's a reason that AlphaZero, Deep Blue, etc. were created by developers who also happened to play chess, and not by GMs who happen to know how to write software. One set of skills is far more useful than the other in this arena. Your rating gives you not one ounce more credibility than you have ever had here, which is not much. Much the same way that you don't ask your horse how to win the Kentucky Derby.
#2214
"Thus your sample involves uncertain conclusions based on a sample comprising about 1 of each 10^36 positions. It is virtually worthless for drawing conclusions."
++ That is right: I try to draw conclusions about 10^36 legal and sensible positions from a sample games data base of 10^7, i.e. 10^8 positions. However, the mathematician Tromp is allowed to draw conclusions about the legality of 10^44 positions from a sample of 538 legal positions.
"and the vast majority of these cannot be reached in a reasonable game with > 50% accuracy.
You know you are guessing wildly. So do we all."
++ It is an educated guess. Pick any one of the 538 legal Tromp positions and try to construct a game of > 50% accuracy that reaches it. You are sure to fail. I gave one example of a Tromp legal position and its shortest proof game above. Even more: Pick any of the 10,000 positions without any promotions that Tromp randomly sampled and try to construct a game of > 50% accuracy that reaches it. You are sure to fail again. I gave one example of such a position and somebody else was so kind to provide a proof game. Its accuracy is near 0%. Tromp himself conjectured that 1 in 10^6 positions without promotions to pieces not previously captured may be sensible. Multiplying the number of positions without promotions to pieces not previously captured by 10, to account for positions with 3 or 4 queens leaves 10^38 positions. The conjecture about 1 in 10^6 positions then gives a range of 10^38 - 10^32 legal positions that can occur in a game with > 50% accuracy.
"Some of ICCF or even human games may already be ideal games with optimal moves.
So what? Why would you even think this is relevant?"
++ This is relevant, because it means some heuristics derived from human play, ICCF play and TCEC play may be used to simplify solving chess.
Whenever a pawn promotes, it is to a queen, unless it must be a knight to promote with check or to deliver a smothered checkmate, or unless it must be a rook or even a bishop to prevent stalemate. That is something we know. The solution to solving chess is not suddenly going to include 9 underpromotions.
The center is more important than the wings. It is something we know. That is why if 1 e4 and 1 d4 are proven draws, then it is not necessary to check 1 a4. It could be done on demand, but there is no point in wasting resources on it as the outcome is beyond any doubt.
Losing a pawn or an exchange without clear compensation usually leads to a loss. Losing a piece even more. That is something we know. Thus it is pointless to investigate 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6. We know it loses for white.
#2255
"I guess you forgot that Pfren, BlueEmu, and Llama...all of whom are rated significantly higher than you"
++ Please kindly remind me what Pfren, BlueEmu, and Llama wrote on this thread here.
I have trouble finding any of their statements in the 2258 posts. Maybe you can help me.
Pfren, BlueEmu, and Llama are different persons from me, so it is only logical that they have sometimes different opinions than me on some topics and sometimes the same. The whole point of a discussion forum is to confront different opinions.
tygxc wrote:
Tromp himself conjectured that 1 in 10^6 positions without promotions to pieces not previously captured may be sensible. Multiplying the number of positions without promotions to pieces not previously captured by 10, to account for positions with 3 or 4 queens leaves 10^38 positions. The conjecture about 1 in 10^6 positions then gives a range of 10^38 - 10^32 legal positions that can occur in a game with > 50% accuracy.
Tromp waved you off when you tried to push your BS...10^44 dropped to 10^36 dropped to 10^17...and I am guessing he did so for the same reason we are. It doesn't matter if only 1 in a million positions turns out to be viable/worth evaluating...because you have to evaluate them anyway at some level to make that determination which will take longer than any of our lifetimes. You just keep pretending this will magically happen with no effort whatsoever.
tygxc wrote:
#2255
"I guess you forgot that Pfren, BlueEmu, and Llama...all of whom are rated significantly higher than you"
++ Please kindly remind me what Pfren, BlueEmu, and Llama wrote on this thread here.
I have trouble finding any of their statements in the 2258 posts. Maybe you can help me.
Pfren, BlueEmu, and Llama are different persons from me, so it is only logical that they have sometimes different opinions than me on some topics and sometimes the same. The whole point of a discussion forum is to confront different opinions.
I'm not going to search it all...but Llamas posts were fairly recent, so I'm pretty sure you can find them. Are you planning to claim that these posters do *not* disagree with your numbers? Because most of the regulars on these type of threads here know that they did/do. The point is, you reduced the set of posters down in a dubious fashion that only serves your interests...which is *exactly* what you did to come up with your 5 year plan .
tygxc wrote:
MARatingen 860
Btickler 1559
Haiaku 1667
Playerafar 1709
Elroch 1779
Optimissed 1890
Tygxc 2044
What could that relationship be?
Oh, that's the point? Nice that you didn't write the names in reverse order. I wonder what is Schaeffer's rating in checkers, though...
tygxc wrote:
The whole point of a discussion forum is to confront different opinions.
And to distinguish proofs from hypotheses, whenever possible. But of course it is proven that intelligence, education and logical thinking skills are proportional to chess rating, isn't it? So none here can be better than you at that...
btickler wrote:
tygxc wrote:
#2245
"I don't see how there's any notion of a clique between people that don't interact outside of public thread posts, really. That would imply a pre-existing relationship, but the common focal points for this theoretical clique historically would seem to be Tygxc and yourself, or more accurately, the ummm...steadfast and closely-held ideas you both post month in and month out."
MARatingen 860
Btickler 1559
Haiaku 1667
Playerafar 1709
Elroch 1779
Optimissed 1890
Tygxc 2044
What could that relationship be?
I guess you forgot that Pfren, BlueEmu, and Llama...all of whom are rated significantly higher than you, also refuted your premise here and on other threads, so that "relationship" is not valid. See...this is why you can't seem to get where you want to go...selective myopia.
You are also using rapid ratings of human beings, and pretending they should have some meaningful impact on understanding how chess can be solved by engines or some future technology. They do not. There's a reason that AlphaZero, Deep Blue, etc. were created by developers who also happened to play chess, and not by GMs who happen to know how to write software. One set of skills is far more useful than the other in this arena. Your rating gives you not one ounce more credibility than you have ever had here, which is not much. Much the same way that you don't ask your horse how to win the Kentucky Derby.
I don't agree either with tygxc's premise. However, all he's doing is demonstrating that the cabal acted just like a cabal and depicted tygxc and me as the weak, dull chappies, whereas we're both fairly decent players. If I remember right, he doesn't play Daily and so had to use rapid grades as being the most likely to reflect ability, in his opinion. Bullet doesn't reflect ability at all and since they moved 10/0 out of blitz into rapid, blitz is no longer much of an indication. Elroch has a high Daily rating but I don't think he's played it seriously for years. I was playing it up to this February. I think tygxc is making a point, which people are at liberty to accept as meaningful or not, just as they please.
#2259
"Tromp waved you off when you tried to push your BS...10^44 dropped to 10^36"
++ No, Tromp could not agree with any of my proposed definitions of a sensible position.
My present best effort: sensible position = legal position with a proof game of > 50% accuracy.
Tromp was quite helpful generating the random sample of 10,000 positions without promotions to pieces not previously captured. Tromp conjectured that only 1 in 10^6 of those positions without promotions to pieces not previously captured might occur in a reasonable game.
"It doesn't matter if only 1 in a million positions turns out to be viable/worth evaluating...because you have to evaluate them anyway at some level to make that determination"
++ No, I do not have to evaluate them, as they do not occur during weakly solving chess.
Only positions that are legal, sensible, reachable, and relevant need evaluating as they turn up during weakly solving chess.
Illegal positions do not turn up as they cannot be reached from the initial position.
Non-sensible positions like with 2 white dark square bishops or 5 black rooks do not turn up as they cannot be reached from the initial position by a game with > 50% accuracy and we are searching for an ideal game with optimal moves and thus an accuracy near 100%.
Non-reachable positions do not turn up. Many positions with a white pawn on e2 are legal and sensible, but none can be reached after 1 e4.
Non-relevant positions are legal, sensible, and reachable, but do not matter. If 1 e4 e5 is proven a draw, then it is not relevant if 1 e4 c5 draws as well or not.
The point is that if the definition doesn't exist, a term is meaningless.
Emphasis seems necessary.
Correct. Especially in math - but in other contexts too.
But at least two people aren't catching on.
They probably won't.
But we'll continue to hear to the effect of 'better than all of you' from both of them.
You aren't half thick.