I agree. I have by far the higher IQ. But you shouldn't talk about such things. It could annoy someone or even make them feel bad. I'm sure you wouldn't want that so don't do it.
If you feel that it is inappropriate to talk about such matters, WHY do you continue to do so?
Its apparently as a baiting manoeuver - and to push for a situation whereby there is a double standard for him. A power play.
As to whether he has an inkling of his own motives - 
The other guy continues to 'look good' by comparison.
'Soft guy Hard guy' dynamics.
Actually you and Elroch "caused" it. Elroch with his normal pomposity closely followed by you with your normal utter stupidity in not understanding the situation and making some facile comment about Elroch and I being a mismatch. If Elroch would be more straightforward and honest, and stopped trying to score points when there shouldn't be any points to score, then he would be a lot more bearable. As for you, I've been told by others that you're a sociopathic troll, who made life difficult in various clubs, for those who just wanted a quiet life there. I had not come across you until recently and that was good. You wouldn't be so ridiculous if you didn't constantly interfere in situations which you aren't involved in and don't understand. You're a troll and you shouldn't be given air time.
It must be really irritating to have people being pompous when they know so much less than you, who understands everything without even trying; not being able to explain why you are always correct to the chattel must be even more frustrating 
...it's such a difficult burden you carry.
Hard Guy doesn't understand that it was he whose 'feelings' were affected when he was reminded that its always a mismatch with Elroch and others always coming out on top of him. His reference to IQ was intensely feeble - compounding his persistent errors.
We can continue to be polite to @tygxc - and not indulge in the namecalling that the moderators had apparently cured the other guy of temporarily.
Please notice that the terms 'Hard guy; and 'Soft Guy' don't refer to usernames.
Nor do they have to be pejoratives.
Soft and hard can be plusses in many situations.
Apparently - @tygxc was doing FORTRAN in the seventies.
So he isn't 'young' after all.
That could mean that he isn't going to change either.
He'll continue to hold that he 'knows more about mathematics' while also continuing to hold that the real speed of the computers 'doesn't matter' and 'nodes per second' and so on.
It reminded me just now of the old man in Squid Game - enormous smirk on his face in the Red Light Green Light opener ...
Why did he make the concession of 'well node just refers to 'consider' ' ?
To keep up the spiel he shouldn't have made that concession.
But looks like he's not going to concede much as to what 'consider' means.
This is all very relevant to the subject of 'chess will never be solved'.
It certainly will become even less likely - not even weak solving - if whoever is pushing solution is reticent about the terms he's using !
Oh wait - he isn't 'cured'.
Post 2358. He's ignoring the warnings from the moderators.
There's a red button within that post ...
Note that the post number will change if somebody deletes something.
It's worth remembering that a discrete game of perfect information like chess has states which tell you everything relevant to the future course of the game. A "position" is just a lot of the information associated with a state. The inclusion of e.p. and castling in states is very simple, and the information needed for the 50 move rule is equally simple - just one number - but the information needed for the 3-fold repetition rule (or any other repetition rule) is pretty much the entire history of the game. Hence FEN omits only the latter, while a full PGN provides what is needed to derive it. Minimally, you can get by with a PGN starting at the last irreversible move (initiated using a FEN).
While such a FEN+PGN describes the full state, many of them describe the same state. All of them that traverse the same bag of positions since the last irreversible move, to be precise. Even with this reduction, tablebases of such states are way too large to be practical.
Regarding repetition - that can be regarded as a position to be solved from.
Regarding change of strategy because 2 fold repetition has occurred -
I pointed out that even the opening position could re-occur.
So does that mean that every single position has to be multiplied by two - in case it has occured once before ?
If so - so be it. The computer might have to solve for that too.
I'm suggesting though - that that could be a secondary project.
Like adding castling to tablebases. Since that appears to be So difficult.
Same with 50 move stuff. Mostly ignore it.
Handle less than 50 and over the default time as separate projects..
Solve each position as if its at the beginning of the 50. Make reports.
In other words - a way to begin to make 'weak solving' feasible.
Could be distinguished from 'heuristics'.
Of course in a tablebase repetition can be safely ignored for a lot of purposes. This is because if the position is decisive, there is a distance to mate which continually decreases with optimal play, thus repetition cannot occur. If the position is drawn previous positions have occurred - this can only make a draw occur more quickly with optimal play. The same position with no previous positions taken into account will be drawn as well.
So repetition only makes a difference to value when previous play has been suboptimal. If there was a win and a player goofed, a repetition could have occured or could be necessary to head for a win. The previously inaccurate play could even make the win disappear because all paths to it would run into a repetition, thus drawing.
I believe @MARattigan has drawn attention to such things.
That could burn up an awful lot of computer time.
Previous play was 'suboptimal'.
Seems to be getting back into 'games' again.
I'm suggesting a simple 'algorithm' - checkmate is availble or it isn't - but the computer doesn't have to confine its 'report' to that.
It can say 'in less than 50 with no capture/pawn move - or in more than 50 but pawn move/capture available to restart the count -
or will exceed 50 move limitation but checkmate available in non-algebraic number of moves - or beyond 50 not known because of default computer time allotment.
Increase the results - rather than having to go back over ...
if it has to go back over - then its starting to head up into those crazier numbers like 10 to the sixtieth or to the 80th or over 100th.
Or perhaps its to note 'sub-optimal play' ?
If its gravitating back to 'games' then
It could get so that the finite universe Big Bangers would argue that universal entropy would have happened first ....
That could burn up an awful lot of computer time.
Previous play was 'suboptimal'.
Seems to be getting back into 'games' again.
Yes. To have an oracle for perfect play in games - strong solution - you would need to deal with the full state including all previous positions. So not just a 32 piece tablebase, but something that has a size that is a huge power of the size of that tablebase.
To achieve the optimal result - weak solution - you don't need this, as you always reduce the distance to mate when there is a win and when there is a draw you don't care about repetitions.
If neither of you had resorted to making personal comments, then the diversion wouldn't have occurred. I know this is a revolutionary idea but you're allowed to criticise each other when you make stupid comments or personal comments which are obviously ad hominem, which you both did.
I believe it's necessary to focus on how chess may be analysed in a more generalised sense, in order to try to determine patterns whereby it may be possible to predict how an evolving position may crystallise into a drawn position or conversely, into one unbalanced enough to be winning and losing. Then, a future generation of algorithms may be devised, that will more accurately direct a semi-strong search, which is necessary to determine the so-called weak solution.
Is this word-salad or the possible future? Semi-strong has now been sufficiently defined, that only a person without a working mind would fail to understand the meaning. As usual, your choice.
Yes, good point that hadn't sprung to my mind.
The number of legal games (say until mate, statemate or some repetition rule) is absurdly large with any ruleset, most ridiculously with basic rules. In that scenario with nothing like the 50 move rule, consider where you are in one of the equivalence classes of positions defined by the existence of a legal path in either direction between them. It is legal to traverse the entire set of positions before moving on to a new equivalence class, only restricted by some sort of automatic drawing repetition rule (unlike the ones where the draw needs to be claimed, when the number of game is clearly infinite). There can be a ridiculous number of positions in an equivlance class. Eg with some pawn configuration and a set of other pieces, the pieces can reshuffle themselves into any legal configuration they can reach. A game typically consists of passing through up to a hundred or two equivalence classes (pawn moves and all captures always move between equivalence classes).
Though this is of purely abstract interest, the exact drawing repetition rule might affect whether it was possible to visit every position in an equivalence class (a bit like a multipiece version of the knight's tour problem. An equivalence class of positions has a directed graph whose directed edges are legal moves leading between two nodes which are legal positions. It is not necessarily possible to navigate such a directed graph without visiting the same node 2 or more times (the exact possibilities that can occur in chess would require some investigation).
For example for the equivalence class with just two kings there are somewhat less than 8000 legal positions (determined by the locations of the kings and which player is to move). The number of edges from a node is the number of legal moves, and the number of edges to a node is the number of legal moves leading to the positions (or the number of legal reverse moves).
I hypothesise there is a legal sequence visiting every legal position (with just two kings) once (like in the even simpler knight's tour problem). [Exercise for reader: prove this hypothesis ]
Anyhow, the number of legal chess games even if you use a 50 move rule is absurdly large. Way more than 10^N where N is the longest legal game.
" The number of edges from a node is the number of legal moves, and the number of edges to a node is the number of legal moves leading to the positions (or the number of legal reverse moves)."
Progress on 'nodes'.
"I hypothesise there is a legal sequence visiting every legal position (with just two kings) once (like in the even simpler knight's tour problem)"
Isn't that one obvious ?
There's always going to be many many legal sequences leading to each and every possible position with two Kings only.
The pieces are simply exchanged off.
But maybe that's not what you had in mind. @Elroch.
'Equivalence classes' looks like a good term.
Groups of positions separated from each other by a capture or a pawn move.
Obviously only one such with 2 Kings and only one with 2 Kings plus any non-pawn piece.
With 2 Kings plus a pawn there would be at most - six.
It could get so that the finite universe Big Bangers would argue that universal entropy would have happened first ....
It's very wrong to make comments about Elroch in that way. That's definitely about him. I wasn't happy that he told me I should be scientific but I've changed my mindset now and accept him for who he is. A finite universe banger.
If neither of you had resorted to making personal comments, then the diversion wouldn't have occurred. I know this is a revolutionary idea but you're allowed to criticise each other when you make stupid comments or personal comments which are obviously ad hominem, which you both did.
I believe it's necessary to focus on how chess may be analysed in a more generalised sense, in order to try to determine patterns whereby it may be possible to predict how an evolving position may crystallise into a drawn position or conversely, into one unbalanced enough to be winning and losing. Then, a future generation of algorithms may be devised, that will more accurately direct a semi-strong search, which is necessary to determine the so-called weak solution.
Is this word-salad or the possible future? Semi-strong has now been sufficiently defined, that only a person without a working mind would fail to understand the meaning. As usual, your choice.
Semi-strong still isn't applicable. Just come up with some other nomenclature for it.
As for attacking, let's not pretend you don't make attacks on people (individuals and the rest of humanity whose IQs are <160 in general) constantly...
P.S. The "if you don't agree with my argument/definition, you are mindless" tactic is one of your weakest to date. It's schoolyard stuff.
"I hypothesise there is a legal sequence visiting every legal position (with just two kings) once (like in the even simpler knight's tour problem)"
Isn't that one obvious ?
No - incorrrect in fact.
The game terminates when any such position occurs.
I think what @Elroch had in mind was a game with the dead position rule excised (and "position" with the special meaning assigned in art. 9.2) when it's not obvious.
This statement by 'the guy' pathetically contradicts itself -
"It's very wrong to make comments about Elroch in that way. That's definitely about him. I wasn't happy that he told me I should be scientific but I've changed my mindset now and accept him for who he is. A finite universe banger."
Does 'the guy' even think he's serious? Sometimes probably.
Appears to be a transient and cyclical situation.
"I hypothesise there is a legal sequence visiting every legal position (with just two kings) once (like in the even simpler knight's tour problem)"
Isn't that one obvious ?
No - incorrrect in fact.
The game terminates when any such position occurs.
I think what @Elroch had in mind was a game with the dead position rule excised (and "position" with the special meaning assigned in art. 9.2) when it's not obvious.
We already know it terminates.
I think @Elroch was probably referring to sequences of moves arriving at different positions of the two Kings -
obviously there are many such sequences - but that's Too obvious ...
suggesting to me he had something else in mind.
Involving that - but different from it.
Perhaps he'll clear it up.
Martin - we probably agree on this - regardless of what 'art 9.2' is -
no need to argue about that on which we agree - where we agree.
And you've confirmed it seems that the nature of strategy and 'prognosis' of positions might change according to how many moves from the 50 a position might be -
but I've suggested there's a workaround for that.
Rather than having to multiply each position to produce 100 different positions according to how far from the 50.
If that's going to be instituted - then maybe it could be reconciled with 'equivalence class'. But that's not the workaround I'm suggesting.
A 100 x multiplier could be a big deal ? Elroch seemed to argue maybe not - by arguing that the 'advantage' for the side needing to draw would increase. It seems.
But just in terms of the load on the computers -
if the whole project was going to take 100 years (crassly unlikely it would be that short) - then 100x takes it up to 10,000 years.
Are 100 years and 10,000 amounting to the same thing - as far as 'soon' is concerned ?
Well 10K years could be regarded as in the same 'ballpark' as ten trillion years.
Whereas with 100 years - there could be computer improvements along the way.
Greatly reducing it.
So 100 years looks very much like 'will be solved' territory.
Downside: No way to solve in 100 years or even in 100 million years !
Will they still have Tropicana orange juice then ?
#2364
"the information needed for the 50 move rule is equally simple - just one number"
++ That is right, but not needed.
In practice the 50 moves rule is never invoked before the 7-men endgame table base is reached. In the ICCF world championship there are 16 decisive games, and 108 draws: 81 by agreement, 17 by 3-fold repetition, 10 by reaching a 7-men endgame table base draw, none at all by the 50 moves rule. A rule that does not get invoked can be considered unwritten.
The high draw rate signifies that several of these games are likely ideal games with optimal moves. More draws means more games with an even number of errors than decisive games with an odd number of errors. The only logical explanation for that is that there are drawn games with 0 errors, less decisive games with 1 error, less drawn games with 2 errors, less decisive games with 3 errors...
The trend is even stronger after eliminating the games of the last player, who apparently had to resign games for extraneous reasons, maybe health problems.
https://www.iccf.com/event?id=85042
"the information needed for the 3-fold repetition rule (or any other repetition rule) is pretty much the entire history of the game."
++ Yes, that is right, but easy to do.
An average game lasts 39 moves with a standard deviation of 14.
It is easy and fast to compare the new FEN to the 39 previous FEN.
"While such a FEN+PGN describes the full state"
++ No: a PGN describes all of its FEN; an array of FEN describes a PGN.
They are dual representations of the same.
Either the PGN or the array of FEN are enough.
Chess ratings - IQ - degrees - 'no comparison' - the 'cabal' - all such tactics are pathetic and actually intellectually feeble.
while at every instance its like its a mismatch every time ...
the 'am better - know more' duo score zero .. others: 2000 or whatever.
Maybe we'll also get 'you're either for me or against me' attempts at imposition - digital A or B again.
'Infighting'. Claims about cliques and cabals while desperately trying to form them himself. Projections of his projections.
Complaining about the situations he keeps causing for himself.
It appears to be unique in the forums.
Actually you and Elroch "caused" it. Elroch with his normal pomposity closely followed by you with your normal utter stupidity in not understanding the situation and making some facile comment about Elroch and I being a mismatch. If Elroch would be more straightforward and honest, and stopped trying to score points when there shouldn't be any points to score, then he would be a lot more bearable. As for you, I've been told by others that you're a sociopathic troll, who made life difficult in various clubs, for those who just wanted a quiet life there. I had not come across you until recently and that was good. You wouldn't be so ridiculous if you didn't constantly interfere in situations which you aren't involved in and don't understand. You're a troll and you shouldn't be given air time.