@tygxc
In point of fact KQRRBBNNPPPPPPPP vs. KQRRBBNNPPPPPPPP occurs most frequently, not KRPP vs. KRP.
And that is one thing that would remain true with perfect play.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Apr 8, 2022
0
#2823
tygxc wrote:
#2867
"underpromotion to a bishop or rook can never be essential (and can never be the only good move) in a drawing position because the only thing that can "go wrong" is to stalemate the opponent, and that can never be disadvantageous if the position is a draw. Under promotion to a knight can be the only good move in a winning or a drawing position."
++ Yes, good point.
Underpromotion to a knight happens once in a while,
but usually
"usually"? So what? It's what happens that matters, not how often.
to a knight previously captured and never in multiples.
In a tiny sample of a few hundred million positions occurring in games by imperfect players.
If you are looking for rare examples, the best way to miss them is to ignore 99.9999999% (or more) of the relevant population. The set of all positions that can be reached by optimal play is enormously larger than your sample.
I have provided an argument why it is extremely likely that multiple underpromotions to knights can occur in optimal play from drawn or won positions and that multiple underpromotions to bishops and rooks can occur from winning positions. (More strongly my argument indicates that if chess is a draw the former is extremely likely to occur from the opening position and that the latter can occur by a single mistake from the opening position).
#2871
"In point of fact KQRRBBNNPPPPPPPP vs. KQRRBBNNPPPPPPPP occurs most frequently, not KRPP vs. KRP."
++ That is not even true: there are more 26-men positions than 32-men positions.
We cannot verify 32-men positions or 26-men positions.
KRPP vs. KRP occurs most frequently and is most relevant among the 7-men positions we can verify as they count 7 men and thus are at the boundary of the 7-men endgame table base.
#2872
"In a tiny sample of a few hundred million positions occurring in games by imperfect players."
++ And in a tinier sample of a few thousand games by perfect players: ICCF WC draws.
"The set of all positions that can be reached by optimal play is enormously larger than your sample."
++ Yes, that is right: set of all legal positions 4.79 * 10^44; set of legal, sensible, reachable, relevant positions 10^17.
Sample of positions from imperfect games 10^8. Sample of positions from perfect games 10^5.
However, knowledge about stars was also derived from observing a small sample of the total.
Tromp also estimated the number of 4.79*10^44 legal positions from a sample of only 10^6 and he also provided the interval of 95% confidence +- 0.04 * 10^44.
"it is extremely likely that multiple underpromotions to knights can occur in optimal play from drawn (...) positions" ++ Do you mean multiple underpromotions to knights or multiple underpromotions to knights not previously taken?
"the former is extremely likely to occur from the opening position" ++ Why? I do not see that.
tygxc wrote:
And in a tinier sample of a few thousand games by perfect players: ICCF WC draws.
Set of all legal positions 4.79 * 10^44; set of legal, sensible, reachable, relevant positions 10^17.
You are the only one in the world stating such things, but you write them as everyone thought the same. You say that sometimes things are "known" but not proven. Is there a way that coud prove you that those statements above are not so "known" as you think?
#2875
"You are the only one in the world stating such things."
++ Yes, somebody has to be a pioneer.
Here is an overview of ICCF WC finals:
WC Total Decisive Draw D E Ideal
32 125 17 108 0.14 0.13 106
31 133 14 119 0.11 0.10 118
30 136 9 127 0.07 0.07 126
29 136 13 123 0.10 0.09 122
28 136 20 116 0.15 0.14 113
27 136 16 120 0.12 0.12 118
26 136 25 111 0.18 0.18 107
25 120 22 98 0.18 0.18 94
24 136 35 101 0.26 0.24 93
23 136 50 86 0.37 0.33 70
22 136 70 66 0.51 0.42 37
Total 1466 291 1175 0.20 0.19 1102
Progress over years is clear: a drop in the error rate E.
Each ICCF WC Finals yields over 100 ideal games with optimal moves i.e. perfect play.
In total we have 1102 ideal games with optimal moves i.e. perfect play.
tygxc wrote:
#2842
"it is highly likely that there are positions with multiple light squared bishops that are reached by 100% optimal play."
++ That is nonsense. Optimal play is to promote to a queen, not to a second same color bishop. There are very rare exceptions where promotion to a bishop is necessary to avoid stalemate. Some sick artificial constructions prove nothing. The sick artificial constructions cannot be reached from the initial positions by optimal play themselves. In none of the ICCF WC draws occurs a single underpromotion. 99% of these ICCF WC draws are ideal games with optimal moves.
When you are talking about 10^44 positions, then "very rare exceptions" can be millions or billions of positions that you are summarily dismissing. Every single recorded chess game in human history would be "very rare exceptions" by your reasoning, since there are far less than 1 trillion games recorded.
The way you clumsily hack 10^44 to 10^17 shows amply well that you do not really grasp exponents at a fundamental level. You know the math on the page, but you lack the imagination to understand how unfathomably large the numbers are.
tygxc wrote:
Somebody has to be a pioneer.
Progress over years is clear: a drop in the error rate E.
But do you think you have proven that the increasing draw rate is due to a drop in the error rate (I don't think you estimation of the error rate is correct)? And do you think that an engine that in self-play draws 70% of the times, plays perfectly about (applying your formula) 60% of times, so it can be beaten no more than 40% of times by any other engine?
Apr 8, 2022
0
#2830
tygxc wrote:
#2871
"In point of fact KQRRBBNNPPPPPPPP vs. KQRRBBNNPPPPPPPP occurs most frequently, not KRPP vs. KRP."
++ That is not even true: there are more 26-men positions than 32-men positions.
You must write a book on your system of logic sometime.
You said
I did not say only KRPP vs. KRP occurs, I said it 1) occurs most frequently and 2) is most relevant.
KRPP vs. KRP is an endgame classification not a position.
Try a random sampling of the the games in the ICCF tournaments you keep posting and count in how many of those samples KQRRBBNNPPPPPPPP vs. KQRRBBNNPPPPPPPP occurs and in how many KRPP vs. KRP occurs.
Before you do would you like to propose a wager that KRPP vs. KRP will occur more frequently than KQRRBBNNPPPPPPPP vs. KQRRBBNNPPPPPPPP? I'd be happy to take the bet.
playerafar wrote:
Obviously - Elroch's point about the underpromotions is not and was not a question.
So the accusation is unfounded.
I suppose it's a bit much to ask playerafar to kindly stop being a mentally retarded troll?
Apr 8, 2022
0
#2832
And there 'somebody' goes again. Breaking the rules.
Again - Elroch's point about underpromotions was not a question.
So therefore the accusation against him by 'the guy' was unfounded.
playerafar wrote:
And there 'somebody' goes again. Breaking the rules.
Again - Elroch's point about underpromotions was not a question.
So therefore the accusation against him by 'the guy' was unfounded.
And you're not a person who stalks people and deliberately irritates them with the banal rubbish you write? Just go away somewhere and learn how to ignore posts. Everyone pretty much ignores yours. All this "Elroch this and Elroch that" is completely pathetic. That isn't a comment about Elroch.
It just shows you haven't a clue what's going on.
Apr 8, 2022
0
#2835
Optimissed wrote:
All Elroch is doing, is asking questions which he knows full well cannot be answered. I disagree with tygxc, of course: but the argument is already over and repeating it is a sign of weakness. It indicates a misplaced sense of hopefulness.
Obviously - Elroch is doing far more than asking questions.
So the accusation is unfounded. And is in the same category as phony authority - obsessions about intelligence levels - other unfounded accusations - rulebreaking ... and even complaining that the forum topic continues ... all coming from the same person (not I) plus he's been there before and was asked 'lets see how long you can go'.
Not long. Just repeating his same cycles over and over.
He's even back to the 'cabal' stuff too. Imaginary conspiracies.
Changing the avatar isn't going to change his behaviour either.
But @tygxc (who is Not that person) - makes his points in a civil way.
The other guy could learn from that - but fails to do so.
And now - getting back to the main topic - there's lots of posts to respond to - and to consider.
No need to be intimidated by somebody who even threatens to go to the moderators over use of common english pronouns 
Apr 8, 2022
0
#2836
haiaku wrote:
tygxc wrote:
And in a tinier sample of a few thousand games by perfect players: ICCF WC draws.
Set of all legal positions 4.79 * 10^44; set of legal, sensible, reachable, relevant positions 10^17.
You are the only one in the world stating such things, but you write them as everyone thought the same. You say that sometimes things are "known" but not proven. Is there a way that coud prove you that those statements above are not so "known" as you think?
Good post. Questioning - but without breaking the rules.
and the reply from @tygxc :
"++ Yes, somebody has to be a pioneer."
Not exactly a 'proof'
But done without rancour.
playerafar wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
All Elroch is doing, is asking questions which he knows full well cannot be answered. I disagree with tygxc, of course: but the argument is already over and repeating it is a sign of weakness. It indicates a misplaced sense of hopefulness.
Obviously - Elroch is doing far more than asking questions.
So the accusation is unfounded. And is in the same category as phony authority - obsessions about intelligence levels - other unfounded accusations - rulebreaking ... and even complaining that the forum topic continues ... all coming from the same person (not I) plus he's been there before and was asked 'lets see how long you can go'.
Not long. Just repeating his same cycles over and over.
Changing the avatar isn't going to change the behaviour either.
But @tygxc (who is Not that person) - makes his points in a civil way.
The other guy could learn from that - but fails to do so.
And now - getting back to the main topic - there's lots of posts to respond to - and to consider.
No need to be intimidated by somebody who even threatens to go to the moderators over use of common english pronouns
I wasn't accusing anyone of anything. I was pointing out what I considered some anomalies, slight inaccuracies and general points for consideration. As usual, you unpleasantly made comments which misrepresent, because you're a troll. A malicious little so-and-so and I thought it was time you had some of your own medicine.
Apr 8, 2022
0
#2838
"All Elroch is doing, is asking questions which he knows full well cannot be answered"
Unfounded. Wrong. False. And maybe 'malicious' too.
Whether he 'the guy -not Elroch) quibbles about the semantics of 'accusations' or not.
While he (not I and not Elroch) continues with more accusations and projections.
Regarding 'own medicine' - perhaps others can give him some of his - which is to run to the moderators when he's talked back to.
But not for the same reason. More like - report rule breaking.
Folks - he has a 'history' with the moderators.
Including being muted by the moderators. That's right.
Also - multiple times the moderators have had to explain to him that the others did nothing wrong.
How does somebody like him get stopped?
By breaking his power. That includes being exposed. Or reported.
When he is - he cools it for a bit - but is soon back into the same cycle.
Jesus... Considering how much of a cesspool of bile and ignorance this thread has become, I wouldn't be surprised if it gets locked pretty soon.
Apr 8, 2022
0
#2840
YellowVenom wrote:
Jesus... Considering how much of a cesspool of bile and ignorance this thread has become, I wouldn't be surprised if it gets locked pretty soon.
There's lots of good posts.
As for talking back to insulting behaviour - that's allowed.
Just got to be careful not to also break the rules - which is what the insulting person wants.
[snip]
++ I did not say only KRPP vs. KRP occurs, I said it 1) occurs most frequently and 2) is most relevant.
[snip]
Oh, I see now, @tygxc is attempting a proof by ignoring less common examples.
Just to clarify, all examples that can occur are relevant to a proof, not just the most common ones.