Forums

Chess will never be solved, here's why

Sort:
DiogenesDue
DiogenesDue
Jun 13, 2022
0
#2801
tygxc wrote:

#3436
"For every BlueEmu that posts less, there's a Tygxc that is posting more."
++ And for 1 GM, 65+ World Champion, famous analyst, MSc. with a profound opinion there are 7 weak players that call him a crackpot speaking garbage.

I'm not calling Sveshnikov a crackpot.  He's just a GM who made an exaggeration in an interview.  Happens all the time.

Ilampozhil25
Ilampozhil25
Show your flair!
Jun 13, 2022
0
#2802
haiaku wrote:

I don't even know if it does make sense to reply anymore.

tygxc wrote:

"We agree on that, but that does not prove they their decisions are totally different and uncorrelated." ++ Well in TCEC they start from the same imposed position and they play it differently

Always. Every engine plays a different move... If there are 34 legal moves in that position, the probability for an engine to play any move m is 1/34...

and sometimes it is win/draw,

How many some times? It's up to us to discover.

thus different moves in the same position and uncorrelated

Of course. If two engines play two different moves in one position, all the moves are in general uncorrelated...

Inaccurate, imprecise, hasty generalization.

"But you exclude that their ignorance can lead to a chain of errors by the two, because they both ignore one made a mistake, but to you at least one of them knows how to play perfectly, even with a flawed evaluation"
++ If that were the case, then the evaluation functions would wildly fluctuate and they do not.

For reasons known to @tygxc only.

engines do not just randomly pick moves...

playerafar
playerafar
Show your flair!
Jun 13, 2022
0
#2803
btickler wrote:

It's not required to oppose every single post, only to consistently debunk the garbage when it becomes the only voice .

Tygxc tosses his opinions in on every post that seems to have the flimsiest opening to spout his faulty premise.  

We have to get used to this, though, the public forums have devolved into a rabble of kids, a significant number of crackpots, and a smaller number of cogent posters that try to hold the line.  For every BlueEmu that posts less, there's a Tygxc that is posting more.  

This is very efficiently put.
As is the comment from the same poster that Sveshnikov simply exaggerated something in an interview.  Grossly.
But for 'the guy' its seen as a kind of tactical foothold -
to define his existence and mindset.

playerafar
playerafar
Show your flair!
Jun 13, 2022
0
#2804
Elroch wrote:
haiaku wrote:

I don't even know if it does make sense to reply anymore.

It has become increasingly like a discussion with a Flearther.

With a Flat Earther.  Correct.
Observations of such discussions tell us in a generic way about what  happens in much wider spectrums of discussions with persons who wish to push pseudoscience.
I saw such a massive dialogue end recently.
A flat earther was reminded how heavily he had invested in his flat earthism - how it had taken so much from him.
And how his other denials of reality were also damaging investments.
Then one of his friends reminded him and asserted that he 'needs to get a life'.
At that point - suddenly - something seemed to click.
He rapidly changed policy.
Then disappeared.
But they're always out there.  They'll always keep coming back.
Or surfacing.  In one form or another.

tygxc
tygxc
Jun 13, 2022
0
#2805

#3439
"He's just a GM who made an exaggeration"
++ How would you know that?

playerafar
playerafar
Show your flair!
Jun 13, 2022
0
#2806


Flat earthers never ever concede a point they have been pushing.
No matter how ridiculous the point is.
We're seeing the same thing here.
A point here - is that the pseudosciences being pushed here -
are only those that are relevant and convenient to the pseudo-project.

Whereas flat earthers will often also be conspiracy theorists - 
and will robotically deny multiple estabished positions both inside and outside of science like major news events - documented filmed confirmed by thousands of witnesses and gigantic evidence.
Including even denying deaths or manner of deaths .

DiogenesDue
DiogenesDue
Jun 13, 2022
0
#2807
tygxc wrote:

#3439
"He's just a GM who made an exaggeration"
++ How would you know that?

Because it's an interview, and it's an offhand comment without any detail or backup, and was never followed up on later? wink.png

It's materially no different than the offhand comments Nakumura made about AlphaZero initially.  Just an opinion and a sound bite.  Chess players, who are generally not famous enough to be interviewed, often pander to the interviewers by playing up their answers.  You can watch this on YouTube on pretty much every interview with a non-chess-related press person in an interview.  You can watch Fischer do it with Dick Cavett or Johnny Carson.  Carlsen seems to be a notable exception who has disdain for the press and his own fame, and his attitude is only notable by its rarity in the chess world.

playerafar
playerafar
Show your flair!
Jun 13, 2022
0
#2808

 

Sound byte.  Yes I know the pun needs work.

idilis
idilis
Closed: Inactive
Jun 13, 2022
0
#2809
playerafar wrote:

Flat earthers never ever concede a point they have been pushing. *Snip*

Pushing has to end on a flat earth when the pushed falls over the edge.

Edit: Unless the pushing is done in circles or some other non linear fashion.

idilis
idilis
Closed: Inactive
Jun 13, 2022
0
#2810

It's nice to see the community will not let @thechessintellect be forgotten.

playerafar
playerafar
Show your flair!
Jun 13, 2022
0
#2811
idilis wrote:
playerafar wrote:

Flat earthers never ever concede a point they have been pushing. *Snip*

Pushing has to end on a flat earth when the pushed falls over the edge.

Not if they push an infinite flat earth.  No 'edge'.
So they're not 'on edge' about that - not even with the inferior and mediocre Micrsoft 'Edge'.  

idilis
idilis
Closed: Inactive
Jun 13, 2022
0
#2812
playerafar wrote:
idilis wrote:
playerafar wrote:

Flat earthers never ever concede a point they have been pushing. *Snip*

Pushing has to end on a flat earth when the pushed falls over the edge.

Not if they push an infinite flat earth.  No 'edge'.
So they're not 'on edge' about that - not even with the inferior and mediocre Micrsoft 'Edge'.  

The earth is a plane that cuts though the universe?  My Chrome dome cannot deal with that.

not_cl0ud
not_cl0ud
Jun 13, 2022
0
#2813

In practice, however, chess cannot be solved because it’s beyond the capacity of any human mathematicians and beyond the capabilities of computers. There are 10120 potential variations of games in chess and around 10^43 different potential positions on the board. To fully solve chess, every single one of these must be compared against the other.

idilis
idilis
Closed: Inactive
Jun 13, 2022
0
#2814

Did I not just tell you I have a very good brain.  I laugh at your infinite problems.

My doctors are so impressed they tell me I need to get it checked.  Taking it as a compliment while I'm still in a good mood.

not_cl0ud
not_cl0ud
Jun 13, 2022
0
#2815
TheChessIntellectReturns wrote:
tygxc wrote:

Has chess been solved? No
Can chess be solved? Yes, it takes 5 years on cloud engines.
Will chess be solved? Maybe, it depends on somebody paying 5 million $ for the cloud engines and the human assistants during 5 years.

Have humans walked on Mars? No
Can humans walk on Mars? Yes
Will humans walk on Mars? Maybe, it depends on somebody paying billions of $ to build and launch a spacecraft.

cloud engine or sky engine, the game of chess has already been solved in terms of competitive chess. 

positional mastery has been deduced for pretty much every position. which move is best in which position out of every position out there in the chessverse? it's been solved as far back as capablanca. 

 

if you don't count the random moves and blunders, yes, if you DO count weird random moves, it'll be capablanca in the future

playerafar
playerafar
Show your flair!
Jun 13, 2022
0
#2816

10120 has to be fixed too.
Otherwise they could have solved chess over three hundred years ago -
before we had Jennifer Lopez  and BrAngelina movies.

not_cl0ud
not_cl0ud
Jun 13, 2022
0
#2817

i dont even know if humans will survive long enough to solve chess

not_cl0ud
not_cl0ud
Jun 13, 2022
0
#2818
TheChessIntellectReturns wrote:

Imagine a chess position of X paradigms. 

Now, a chess computer rated 3000 solves that position. All well and good. 

Could another computer rated a zillion solve that position better than Rybka? 

No, because not even chess computer zillion could solve the Ruy Lopez better than a sad FIDE master could. 

the point is, there's chess positions with exact solutions. Either e4, or d4, or c4, etc. 

nothing in the world can change that. 

So if you are talking about chess as a competitive sport, then chess has already been solved by kasparov, heck, by capablanca. 

If you are talking chess as a meaningless sequence of algorithms, where solving chess equates not to logical solutions of positional and tactical prowess, but as 'how many chess positions could ensure from this one?'' type of solutions, then, the solutions are infinite. 

So can chess be solved? If it is as a competitive sport where one side must, win, then it has already been solved. Every possible BEST move in chess has been deduced long ago. 

If chess is a meaningless set of moves, with no goal in sight, then sure, chess will never be solved. 

 

bruh you just copied my topic

Chess Will Never Be 100% Analyzed. Why? - Chess Forums - Chess.com

not_cl0ud
not_cl0ud
Jun 13, 2022
0
#2819
ChessFlair01 wrote:
blah blah blah

If chess is a meaningless set of moves, with no goal in sight, then sure, chess will never be solved. 

 

bruh you just copied my topic

Chess Will Never Be 100% Analyzed. Why? - Chess Forums - Chess.com

i made my topic september 2021

u made it this year

playerafar
playerafar
Show your flair!
Jun 13, 2022
0
#2820


Not if everybody and his brother wants a gasoline-burning global warming  Dodge Ram pickup because Sam Elliott beloved grey-haired bar bouncer is telling them to buy one.