Chess will never be solved, here's why - Chess Forums - Page 170

TheChessIntellectReturns · 2022-01-16T22:50:19-08:00

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 coul

MARattigan

Aug 25, 2022

0

#3381

In twenty years time you'll still be here spouting the same garbage.

Except "the fifty move rule is never invoked with 8 or more men" may have changed to "the fifty move rule is never invoked with 9 or more men" because 8 man tablebases have appeared.

DiogenesDue

Aug 25, 2022

0

#3382

Optimissed wrote:

It does prove that, when faced with a chess position which is obviously, clearly and definitely lost for one side, btickler can't tell it's lost. Fair enough, because he's a weak player but next, he tells others that they can't tell it's definitely lost either.

So if Carlsen, Fischer, Kasparov and Capablanca were lined up and agreeing that it's won for black, he'd be telling them that they can't know that. I wonder who has to give him permission, before he can agree that it's won.

Yes, Carlsen, Fischer, Kasparov, and Capablanca would all be wrong. Quite obviously, as well.

I suppose you're the kind of person that believed the 4 minute mile would never be broken...you know, because the runners said so and who knows more about the human body and it's capabilities to run than a runner? Lol.

DiogenesDue

Aug 25, 2022

0

#3383

MARattigan wrote:

If you didn't like that example, the fact is that White cannot necessarily force mate in KRK even from White to play positions (which rules out stalemates and hanging rooks); in fact from the majority of White to play positions.

Here is another you might like to try. See if you can force mate from the final position (shown) against the computer.

Sure. The final position occurs on move 2, when white correctly plays Rh1#.

MARattigan

Aug 25, 2022

0

#3384

Unfortunately I was playing White and I don't seem to have quite got the hang of it. I'm not the only one; there are plenty of posts in the forum showing you how to mate in 45 in this endgame with only a little help from your opponent.

In fact Coach doesn't appear to have got the hang of it either judging by his comments on Black's move 3. (You'll need to zoom in to about 250%.)

Note that Coach is the one who tells @tygxc whether or not games are sensible, so that could explain a few things.

Kotshmot

Aug 25, 2022

0

#3385

btickler wrote:

Kotshmot wrote:

btickler wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

Of course I know that Ba6 is won for black. Maybe it's too late to tell you not to be ridiculous. Also, Elroch explained that he had made a simple mistake. Stop behaving like a kid and going on and on about it. Your reading comprehension is currently about zero. You're cracking up and I do mean that.

You're not even talking about the same incident, which is par for your course. If you know that Ba6 is won for black, then you can beat Stockfish from that position, on command. Go ahead and demonstrate, without using an engine. You can do it on live chess.

I know that K+R vs. K is won, vs. any engine, and I will happily demonstrate it. If you are claiming to know, 100%, then you are claiming the same level of confidence. You would think after a decade of watching Ponz get pounded for his 99.9999% that you might have learned something about making hyperbolic assertions...but alas, no.

Even if chess was solved and we knew a certain position is winning, more often than not we still wouldnt be able to beat stockfish from there. I'm not sure what this conversation is supposed to prove

If you cannot win a position against *any* opposition put forth, then you cannot claim you are "100% sure" it is a winning position. Can't get any more obvious than that.

Pointless convo but thats not how it works... I couldve went through and recorded every line of a certain position on a computer screen to prove its winning, it obviously doesnt mean me or any other human is capable of beating stockfish in that position.. This is going to be the case if chess eventually gets solved.

lilianaallen

Aug 25, 2022

0

#3386

Well, yeah. No one taught me how to win at this. It's merely a test of strategy if I'm being completely honest. I have to constantly maneuver my pieces around to see what moves I'm more comfortable with that could actually give me an advantage. Of course, those moves don't always give me the biggest win of all, but at least I can reflect on my past moves. There's no descriptive way of winning at this, you just play. At least that's what my personal experience was

DiogenesDue

Aug 25, 2022

0

#3387

Optimissed wrote:

I'm aware that you can't suddenly change yourself from a dullard into something viable. I'm suggesting how you might improve your behaviour, by refraining from repeating very foolish things ad infinitum.

tygxc must be quietly laughing, because you've suddenly grabbed the mantle from him and are competing for "the most foolish ever prize", in my view very successfully.

Dullard is a term I would apply to those who are just obliviously meandering through life thinking they are all that and a bag of chips without any palpable evidence of it...if I were to use such a word, that is.

DiogenesDue

Aug 25, 2022

0

#3388

Kotshmot wrote:

Pointless convo but thats not how it works... I couldve went through and recorded every line of a certain position on a computer screen to prove its winning, it obviously doesnt mean me or any other human is capable of beating stockfish in that position.. This is going to be the case if chess eventually gets solved.

Who are you arguing with again? You are agreeing with my point.

DiogenesDue

Aug 25, 2022

0

#3389

Optimissed wrote:

btickler wrote:

MARattigan wrote:

If you didn't like that example, the fact is that White cannot necessarily force mate in KRK even from White to play positions (which rules out stalemates and hanging rooks); in fact from the majority of White to play positions.

Here is another you might like to try. See if you can force mate from the final position (shown) against the computer.

Sure. The final position occurs on move 2, when white correctly plays Rh1#.

But where is the PROOF? You're wrong if you can't show the PROOF!!

Now you're just reaching, which is the state you always get into:

- Namecalling

- Abandoning logic and hiding behind surface level assertions and thinking

Next comes...

- Swearing off contact ever again

Rinse and repeat.

DiogenesDue

Aug 25, 2022

0

#3390

Optimissed wrote:

But you fail to distinguish between being able to win against any possible line and giving the analysis for every possible line. They are completely different things and you are only showing your lack of an IQ by going on and on and on and on about it. You're the one making the wild assertions. I suppose after

1. d4 ....Nf6
2. Qh5

you'll claim that Carlsen et al would be wrong to claim that as a win for black too. If not that, where do you draw the line? Where is the miraculous point where btickler and Elroch can suddenly tell the difference between "we don't know" and "it's a loss"?

It's occurring to me that you wouldn't even be arguing this way, if you didn't have someone you know is cleverer than you, backing you up. You wouldn't dare, because you at heart you must know you are comparatively destitute of brain cells. But you're both incorrect to make these rather ridiculous assertions that it cannot be known that such simple positions are losses.

Lol. Everything is about measuring people's relative "cleverness" with you. It's like a broken record. If you actually stopped measuring and tried to work your way through a real argument, people might find *you* more clever than they currently do.

Someday you're going to join an adult discussion group filled with Elrochs and Ziryabs (and people like me), and that would be funny to watch.

stancco

Aug 25, 2022

0

#3391

Chess is finite.

No probability there, get it?

It has NO weak or strong solution.

These are all SOLUTIONS. All possible draws. All the lines in which your opponent with absolute knowledge still doesn't have the wining line. There are many of these lines whatsoever, I mean the draw lines.

Call it a domain of SOLUTIONS if you like.

The rest ARE NOT SOLUTIONS because at some point one side (or both sides) make(s) mistake(s) so that the forced win(s) is/are (was/were) possible.

All this said, of course, is in a sense of availability of a forced mate aside the Fide foolish rules like 50moves or such.

And what is of the most relevance for this here thread is the probability that the chess already is - SOLVED.

DiogenesDue

Aug 25, 2022

0

#3392

Optimissed wrote:

Oh and this isn't about other people. It's about you. If you want to continue to pick fights and insult people because you don't understand their arguments, you'll have to take the consequences. There can be points when all people can do is to point out your intellectual limitations. If you could at least show willing to try to understand arguments made by others, instead of trying to make fun of them all the time, at least people would have more sympathy for you and probably wouldn't dislike you so much.

Almost every argument that you and I have ever had has been caused by your failure to understand something I've raised when talking to others. So then you butt in and start with the sly insults. Everyone knows what you're like. And you object when the root cause of your failure to understand just about anything, that isn't directly related to computers, is pointed out. Yet you cause it by your constantly sly, vindictive, passive aggressive behaviour.

It's not about me. It's about you, as the overwrought rationalizing above amply proves. Nor is Elroch secretly trolling me, nor is Tygxc quietly laughing about whatever your silly premise was. These are all just elements of the narrative you tell yourself.

You're just another crackpot I shoot down on occasion.

Elroch

Aug 25, 2022

0

#3393

Optimissed wrote:

Anyway, both Elroch and btickler are wrong to claim that in order to be sure that a chess position is lost, every possible line needs to be looked at.

They would be wrong if they had claimed that.

However, both of them understand that to verify a strategy for one side, it is only necessary to exhaustively analyse the moves of the other side.

In the case of your losing position, it is necessary to find a strategy for the other side and analyse every single legal defensive move against it.

DiogenesDue

Aug 25, 2022

0

#3394

Optimissed wrote:

Everyone's a crackpot, aren't they. And you always win ALL your disagreements and arguments. And sock-puppets had better beware. And your chess rating .... what IS your rating?

Not everybody...the crackpots give off signals. Staccato disjointed attempts to gain some kind traction would be one of them...

DiogenesDue

Aug 25, 2022

0

#3395

Optimissed wrote:

Everyone who dislikes you is a crackpot. Even if they dislike you for VERY good reasons: for instance, your constant trolling and personal attacks on hundreds of members here. The signals they give off are probably dislike.

I won't post all weekend, if you can name even a dozen people I have "attacked". Just more made-up narrative.

MARattigan

Aug 25, 2022

0

#3396

Optimissed wrote:

...

Unless you are prepared to duplicate your arguments to be with regard to1. d4 ...Nf6 2. Qh5

you lose the argument.
...

Er, are we talking about basic rules or competition rules?

neatgreatfire

Aug 25, 2022

0

#3397

what even happened here

also why does every forum on this site turn into a flamewar lol

MARattigan

Aug 25, 2022

0

#3398

Optimissed wrote:

MARattigan wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

...

1. d4 ...Nf6 2. Qh5
...

Er, are we talking about basic rules or competition rules?

It doesn't matter.

I don't think 2. Qh5 is allowed under competition rules.

Typewriter44

Aug 25, 2022

0

#3399

Optimissed wrote:

Elroch wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

Anyway, both Elroch and btickler are wrong to claim that in order to be sure that a chess position is lost, every possible line needs to be looked at.

They would be wrong if they had claimed that.

However, both of them understand that to verify a strategy for one side, it is only necessary to exhaustively analyse the moves of the other side.

In the case of your losing position, it is necessary to find a strategy for the other side and analyse every single legal defensive move against it.

Unless you are prepared to duplicate your arguments to be with regard to
1. d4 ...Nf6 2. Qh5
you lose the argument. I win either way. If you don't think it's a loss for white, you're inept. If you do, then you have to explain exactly where the demarcation lies between knowing something's a loss and not being sure.

I just won the argument, because you can't answer that.

That's not how arguments work. 2. Ba6 and 2. Qh5 have not been shown to be lost. Unless you think that you being convinced they are lost (fair enough, it's a bishop or a queen down) means that you won the argument.

Elroch

Aug 25, 2022

0

#3400

It is interesting how difficult the difference between a very safe bet and something that is known for certain is to many people (including @Optimissed, apparently). Here it is of importance because it is the difference between an unproven (but strongly believed) mathematical proposition and one that has been proved, despite the probabilities being rather small (I would say).

It's worth mentioning that it does happen in mathematics that mathematicians consider a result to be so likely to be true that they act as if it were, while acknowledging that it hasn't been proven. This happens more in theoretical physics where rigour is sometimes put aside in favour of progress.