tygxc wrote:
The high draw rate signifies that several of these games are likely ideal games with optimal moves. So when two toddlers play chess and cannot mate each other, these are optimal moves. <-- Fixed
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Mar 17, 2022
0
#2383
btickler wrote:
tygxc wrote:
The high draw rate signifies that several of these games are likely ideal games with optimal moves. So when two toddlers play chess and cannot mate each other, these are optimal moves. <-- Fixed
Mar 17, 2022
0
#2384
Using the dictionary as bible - is usually regressive.
Counter productive. Reference only.
Its a reference book - not a guide to life.
#2403
You find my personal alternative definition not reasonable but you give no reasons.
You find the definitions is Wikipedia not reasonable.
You find the definition by van den Herik slipshod.
I find your personal alternative definition not reasonable for several reasons.
"my definition is generally accepted (also by van den Herik"
++ Please show the letter where van den Herik accepts your definition.
This discussion about definitions is pointless.
Accept what is written by van den Herik.
Propose something else written in a reputable source.
#2405
I am talking about the World Championship Finals of the ICCF, with ICCF grandmasters with their engines and 5 days per move.
That is not the championship of your local kindergarten.
#2406
If people attach different meanings to the same word differently,
then misunderstanding and confusion results.
For the meaning of a word: look up in a dictionary.
For the meaning of a technical term: look up in an encyclopedia,
or in a publication by an authority in the field.
tygxc wrote:
#2391
"The effect of a blunder is that of two consecutive errors; that does not mean it has the same probability to occur as two consecutive errors."
++ Can you agree that the probalitity of an error on move 8 and an error on move 12 is the same as the probability of an error on move 8 and an error on move 9? If not, then would you think it is higher or lower? If yes, then why would it not be the same as a double error on move 8?
They are not the same thing! You're jumping to conclusions. Engines and humans search and evaluate: the error rate per move is an error rate per search. In the first two cases you have two searches, in the latter just one.
Let's say that P(d) is the probability per day to have a car accident that causes a damage which costs d dollars. Let's say (for the moment, because it is not that simple) that the probability to have two car accidents per week, each causing a damage d, is P²(d). With obvious meaning for the symbols, it is not automagically P(2d)=P²(d)! Where do you read such things? If d=500$, P(1000$)=P²(500$)?
Mar 17, 2022
0
#2391
alexandermatrone-eleleth wrote:
I really need a coach
This is the best Coach in the world:
https://www.chess.com/puzzles/learning
You can do the puzzles unrated.
You can set the rating range of the puzzles you want to play against -
without being rated (better that way) ...
Plus after each puzzle done -
there's a black bubble button that takes you to a discussion forum for each and every one of the 50,000 tactics puzzles !
They're all about 'Solving' chess. And in a very big way !
'Chess will never be solved ?'
Its Solved there Constantly ! And in a big way.
Mar 17, 2022
0
#2392
tygxc wrote:
#2403
You find my personal alternative definition not reasonable but you give no reasons.
Your personal alternative definition is, ""To weakly solve chess is to prove that black can draw against all reasonable white moves." - my objection is that it requires you to provide no algorithm for White to even draw. Nobody else would take that to be a weak solution.
You find the definitions is Wikipedia not reasonable.
Yes, I gave a full explanation earlier. It would be rather tedious to post it again here so if you didn't read / didn't understand it try again.
You find the definition by van den Herik slipshod.
Yes; if you think a weak solution means finding an infallible way for one side to lose, I think you may struggle to get funding for your supercomputers.
I find your personal alternative definition not reasonable for several reasons.
"my definition is generally accepted (also by van den Herik"
++ Please show the letter where van den Herik accepts your definition.
As you probably guessed I haven't been in correspondence with Prof. van den Herik - I just assumed that he would be in line with the rest of the game theory world.
How does that make my definition not reasonable?
This discussion about definitions is pointless.
Does that mean it doesn't matter to you if you don't know what you're trying to do?
Accept what is written by van den Herik.
No.
Propose something else written in a reputable source.
Unless someone can find a valid reason to reject what I wrote I am a reputable source.
Mar 17, 2022
0
#2393
Lol !
I liked that post by Martin !
But I think I've figured out maybe about @tygxc ? Maybe. Maybe not.
Maybe: its not about Sveshnikov - nor 'weak solving' (too weak) - nor 'knows more about mathematics' - nor Cloud computers.
He just wants to talk about solving chess. Its innocent.
The other stuff is window dressing.
MARattigan wrote:
weakly solved means that for the initial position either a timely strategy has been determined for one player that achieves a win against any opposition, or a timely strategy has been determined for both players that avoids a loss against any opposition.
Ok, I think we can agree on that, but this definition (and other equivalent ones) doesn't say anything about suboptimal strategies. In the definition you gave, the optimality is implied in that "against any opposition". That is, White can try something else than 1. Qa7, in that position you posted above, but he has some chances only against a suboptimal strategy by Black; he cannot avoid loss against any opposition (and among those oppositions there is the optimal strategy for Black). You say "that avoids", not "that makes any effort to avoid" (e.g. through clever moves which can induce the opponent to make a mistake). In fact, your definition says about the players when the game value is a draw, and about the player with a won position, but nothing about the player with the lost one. I'd say that 1. Qa7 is part of the strategy for Black (Black's strategy must work against any opponent's move).
Sorry everyone, I confused White and Black in the previous post. I have corrected it.
Mar 17, 2022
0
#2396
@haiaku
I agree my definition says nothing about suboptimal strategies. I don't think it's generally regarded as necessary for a weak solution to say anything about suboptimal strategies.
Obviously they're useful in practical play, but the broad categories of solution in game theory don't address practical play.
Weak solutions don't need to provide a strategy for a losing player. The strategy defaults to, "do whatever you want".
MARattigan wrote:
Weak solutions don't need to provide a strategy for a losing player. The strategy defaults to, "do whatever you want".
Indeed. So
tygxc wrote:
weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition [ . . .] - van den Herik
holds true for your position, if we say that 1. Qa7 is one of the possible moves the losing side can play, and it has been determined what to play against it (and the other possible moves) in order to reach the game value, which is a win for Black. The losing side can be included just as limit case: any strategy is "optimally" losing, so who cares 
.
Mar 17, 2022
0
#2398
The losing side can look for forced play to draw by 50 moves.
Or perpetual check. Or draw by deterrent.
Or there may be a way to force a third repetition different from perpetual.
By the way - (or maybe Not by the way) -
regarding 'pure' repetition of position that is not perpetual check ...
I'm thinking most players never ever encounter it in their games.
Never !
Its even rarer than N+B versus lone King.
Which also might Never be encountered.
Mar 17, 2022
0
#2399
And - does 'anybody' ever encounter the 50 move rule in their games ?
Sometimes. Its rare.
Like it could be that very thing - N+B versus lone King and whoever forgot how to do it and went over the 50.
I would imagine many if not most players under 2000 would forget how to do it - assuming they ever knew. And go over. And maybe even get hit with 'pure' repetition of position.
All these things 'coming together'.
Mar 17, 2022
0
#2400
playerafar wrote:
...
By the way - (or maybe Not by the way) -
regarding 'pure' repetition of position that is not perpetual check ...
I'm thinking most players never ever encounter it in their games.
Never !
Its even rarer than N+B versus lone King.
Which also might Never be encountered.
...
I have encountered it several dozen times practising KNNKP against Wilhelm/Nalimov. You need only choose the wrong direction to force the king at some point. If you force it back again and Wilhelm sees the chance of a triple repetition, he's in like Flynn.
What is quite likely is that players never notice it if the repetitions are separated by more than about ten moves if they're not playing electronically.
#2392
"Perhaps we could agree to assign that meaning."
++ No, your personal alternative definition is not generally accepted.
I could propose my own personal alternative definition, which you would not accept either.
"To weakly solve chess is to prove that black can draw against all reasonable white moves."
Let us just accept the generally accepted definition by van den Herik, leading athority in that field.
Otherwise let us accept a definition in Wikipedia or from any reputable encyclopedia e.g. Britannica.
If we cannot agree on the meaning of a word, then we do not start an argument about it, we look it up in a dictionary, e.g. Webster.
I would say my definition is generally accepted (also by van den Herik - he was just slipshod in the reference you gave).
The Wikipaedia definition is not even consistent.
You say, "If we cannot agree on the meaning of a word ...".
Is there a particular reason you cannot agree on the definition I gave? If so please say what the reason is.
By all means propose your own personal alternative definition (from any source if you can't think of one for yourself). I'm sure people will accept it if it's reasonable. The definitions you've posted to date aren't.