Well of course you'd laugh. You aren't talented at all, so you can only deride others. Because you have nothing worthwhile to add.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
This is what happens when I try to be friendly and make a joke, because you're a psycho and not worth any effort to be friendly to you. "Ooh dear, Optimissed's been nasty to me again".
Well, go back to #3667 and try to work out why. You're pathetic.
Optimissed wrote:
Well of course you'd laugh. You aren't talented at all, so you can only deride others. Because you have nothing worthwhile to add.
Projection. I'm pretty sure my CV would match up quite successfully with you and your knick-knack stores and such. Let's not go there.
Do *you* have anything worthwhile to add, that's the question? Because so far this exchange is all you just exposing your insecurities and compulsive need to oppose those you feel threatened by.
Aug 2, 2022
0
#3625
tygxc wrote:
#3667
"What does "50% accuracy" mean?"
++ It means that you feed the proof game into the engine and read the accuracy of the game. If that accuracy is < 50% then it is sure that the play is not optimal.
No, that means it would be a very good bet that the play is not optimal. An imperfect engine can be completely wrong, identifying the only winning move as a blunder or vice versa. Even you should be able to understand this fact.
Note carefully that once you understand this, you should also understand that the probability of it happening twice in a game is not zero. The same for multiple times in a game. How could you make the mistake of not accepting this?
"How is it determined without a 32 piece tablebase?"
++ By feeding the proof game into the engine.
See above to learn that imperfect engines can be absolutely wrong.
"You do not have answers to this question that make it more than a guess."
++ Yes, I do. If the accuracy is < 50% then that makes it sure it is no optimal play.
Thank you for confirming what I said by guessing.
Optimissed wrote:
This is what happens when I try to be friendly and make a joke, because you're a psycho and not worth any effort to be friendly to you. "Ooh dear, Optimissed's been nasty to me again".
Well, go back to #3667 and try to work out why. You're pathetic.
So you've tried to tell me on numerous occasions. Care to toss in an "idiot" for good measure? These adjectives seem to make you feel better when you apply them to others.
Anyone that has been around here a while knows you are not trying to be friendly.
btickler wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
This is what happens when I try to be friendly and make a joke, because you're a psycho and not worth any effort to be friendly to you. "Ooh dear, Optimissed's been nasty to me again".
Well, go back to #3667 and try to work out why. You're pathetic.
So you've tried to tell me on numerous occasions. Care to toss in an "idiot" for good measure? These adjectives seem to make you feel better when you apply them to others.
Anyone that has been around here a while knows you are not trying to be friendly.
No, they will know that I am friendly. You, however, are toxic. You made a comment on this thread. I made a joke and you immediately made a demeaning post, showing two things. Firstly you didn't understand the joke and secondly you wished to be demeaning.
You're an extremely unpleasant person, except to the people you manage to fool.
tygxc wrote:
#3668
"how large a 32 piece table base would be"
++ A 32 piece table base would be 10^44 bit, but that would be strongly solving chess.
Checkers and Losing Chess have been weakly solved with 10^14 and 10^9 positions only.
++ Weakly solving chess needs 10^17 legal, sensible, reachable, and relevant positions.
"I cant see anyone having the kind of money to do that"
++ 3 cloud engines and 3 human grandmasters during 5 years would cost like $ 3 million.
"Just doesn't seem relevant to anything other than peoples obsession with the idea itself."
++ It is like travel to Mars.
I don't know where you get the 3 million figure to solve a 32 piece base but there is no way its even close to that cheap 10^44 is huge bro. If you mean 10^17 number sure but that's not what i think the OP meant i think they mean a true 32 piece table base that has the answer for every possible position. https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/gvvftb/comment/fsvjobh/ I'm not sure how accurate this math or yours is but even the low ball guy here going for a 350+ trillion pound hard drive that can store data on each individual atom doesn't sound like a practical reality to me.
Optimissed wrote:
No, they will know that I am friendly. You, however, are toxic. You made a comment on this thread. I made a joke and you immediately made a demeaning post, showing two things. Firstly you didn't understand the joke and secondly you wished to be demeaning.
You're an extremely unpleasant person, except to the people you manage to fool.
...and yet I'm not the one who engaged, and I'm not the one tossing out insults.
tygxc wrote:
Weakly solving chess needs 10^17 legal, sensible, reachable, and relevant positions.
Please do not present your hypotheses as facts or estimations well accepted by the scientific community. It is misleading to those who do not understand the subject sufficiently well.
haiaku wrote:
tygxc wrote:
Weakly solving chess needs 10^17 legal, sensible, reachable, and relevant positions.
Please do not present your hypotheses as facts or estimations well accepted by the scientific community. It is misleading to those who do not understand the subject sufficiently well.
While I don't want to get to far off topic this is a idea I'm passionate about. When i hear comments like this is makes me think of religion years ago. To "deny science" akin to denying god 100 years ago. I think its dangerous to believe in anything this dogmatically and there are just so many angles to unpack. Like A why should the scientific community have authority over truth? B why should anyone believe you or anyone else speaks for them. Hell the first thing I learned in a science class was that noting is ever proven only ever a theory to be taken as truth as its the most likely conclusion given the information you have. I consider treating science this way is dangerous and foolish. The idea of it being his duty to spread their ideas and not his own reeks of politics to me. While I don't want to have an entire philosophical discussion about the existence of universal truths or where authority comes from and who has it and power dynamics etc. I do think i can say nothing on the terms of service for chess.com forums compels people to speak in any way. Freedom of speech and ideas is important acting like only one set of them is "correct" is dogmatic dangerous and closed minded in my opinion. ...... That being said I agree i have no idea where that number comes from not because of any scientific community but because my own logic and reason say it doesn't make sense and the only authority I bow to on anything intellectual or otherwise is me. Let the people come to their own decisions.
cokezerochess22 wrote:
haiaku wrote:
tygxc wrote:
Weakly solving chess needs 10^17 legal, sensible, reachable, and relevant positions.
Please do not present your hypotheses as facts or estimations well accepted by the scientific community. It is misleading to those who do not understand the subject sufficiently well.
While I don't want to get to far off topic this is a idea I'm passionate about. When i hear comments like this is makes me think of religion years ago. To "deny science" akin to denying god 100 years ago. I think its dangerous to believe in anything this dogmatically and there are just so many angles to unpack. Like A why should the scientific community have authority over truth? B why should anyone believe you or anyone else speaks for them. Hell the first thing I learned in a science class was that noting is ever proven only ever a theory to be taken as truth as its the most likely conclusion given the information you have. I consider treating science this way is dangerous and foolish. The idea of it being his duty to spread their ideas and not his own reeks of politics to me. While I don't want to have an entire philosophical discussion about the existence of universal truths or where authority comes from and who has it and power dynamics etc. I do think i can say nothing on the terms of service for chess.com forums compels people to speak in any way. Freedom of speech and ideas is important acting like only one set of them is "correct" is dogmatic dangerous and closed minded in my opinion. ...... That being said I agree i have no idea where that number comes from not because of any scientific community but because my own logic and reason say it doesn't make sense and the only authority I bow to on anything intellectual or otherwise is me. Let the people come to their own decisions.
The 10^44 number is supported by a large number of people, 10^17 is supported by one. Uno. That would seem to be an important thing to know when somebody is presenting both numbers as if they are both accurate. You can't "come to your own decision" if somebody is omitting the information.
Free speech is not involved and cannot logically exist at chess.com if you understand what it is, don't make me break out the cartoon again...
Important to you with your logic maybe not so important to me with mine. 1 person 1 thousand 8 billion i can still draw my own conclusions and the number of voices doesn't have any bearing on it whatsoever. You can come to a conclusion with incomplete information in fact i would personally argue every conclusion a human comes to or even a computer is with imperfect knowledge of our world. To say having your own opinion is to omit information you don't subscribe too seems likewise silly to me. In fact based on the wiki i read with the article its based on a 95% confidence interval meaning they are 5% sure their own number is wrong. So while in this case the number they give makes more sense to me based on me agreeing with their logic more it has nothing to do with how many agree or their authority. So i agree his number is not proven but neither is the other one it just seems to me to have more evidence an important distinction.
cokezerochess22 wrote:
Important to you with your logic maybe not so important to me with mine. 1 person 1 thousand 8 billion i can still draw my own conclusions and the number of voices doesn't have any bearing on it whatsoever. You can come to a conclusion with incomplete information in fact i would personally argue every conclusion a human comes to or even a computer is with imperfect knowledge of our world.
Nobody is saying don't draw any conclusions. They are saying don't draw your own conclusions and then pass them along with other information you gleaned as if they are from the same source or have the same of weight of consensus.
To say having your own opinion is to omit information you don't subscribe too seems likewise silly to me.
Good thing nobody said that, then.
In fact based on the wiki i read with the article its based on a 95% confidence interval meaning they are 5% sure their own number is wrong. So while in this case the number they give makes more sense to me based on me agreeing with their logic more it has nothing to do with how many agree or their authority. So i agree his number is not proven but neither is the other one it just seems to me to have more evidence an important distinction.
Proven within + or - 5% is a far cry from an opinion that has zero backup at all. But in our new "I am the hero of my own movie" lives, people take any personal opinion they like and equate it with decades of research and empirical data as well as industry consensus, etc. It doesn't work for drinking fish bowl cleaner because you think it's Hydroxychloroquine, it didn't work for CooloutAC after watching Queen's Gambit and thinking he was going to turn the chess world on it's head, and it doesn't work here for Tygxc.
So yes, you are free to use your own formulated brand of logic to make your conclusions. People are also free to discard/dismiss them.
Not proven their best guess is there is about a 5% chance they are wrong. Proof to me is 100% sure. Not many things in this world are like this self defined things math that only appiles in a vacuum and not the real world etc. For me anything shy of actually having a complete 32 piece table base will never be proof. I've seen many scientific articles that claimed 5% p values I thought were complete nonsense. This is my issue I don't think one person have an opinion is a problem on the contrary i like when people use their own ideas and agree like you said no one has to subscribe to them i certainly don't here. By contrast I think treating science with such dogma as people do now is incredibly dangerous for the same reasons it was with religion. many people tell me they know there is a god and many more that there is not and all i know is that neither of them can to me prove anything. I often find people like to pass their own logic and reason as universal unable to admit there may be something beyond their understanding. The fact that people can see the success of science in front of them makes them believe it dogmatically this is dangerous assuming its always right is a path to tyranny. So no i don't care about this guy or some other random poster but i do care about passionately putting out the idea that people should think for themselves not submit to the ideas of others. Each person is capable of thinking for themselves so they can choose to believe whatever they want but blinding believing in studies without reading them yourself and determining if what they are saying make sense i think is a bad practice.
Aug 2, 2022
0
#3636
Anyone know what compression Syzygy uses? It is extremely impressive, at 0.35 bits per position.
But it still had to deal with every single one of 423,836,835,667,331 positions (except for a small factor for symmetries - 2 for most positions with pawns, 4 for most positions without pawns. Castling is the thing that can mess up the symmetry). i.e. near enough 2 overall, since almost all positions have pawns and a very small fraction of positions have castling possibilities).
Aug 2, 2022
0
#3637
Elroch wrote:
Anyone know what compression Syzygy uses? It is extremely impressive, at 0.35 bits per position.
But it still had to deal with every single one of 423,836,835,667,331 positions (except for a small factor for symmetries - 2 for most positions with pawns, 4 for most positions without pawns. Castling is the thing that can mess up the symmetry). i.e. near enough 2 overall, since almost all positions have pawns and a very small fraction of positions have castling possibilities).
https://www.chessprogramming.org/Syzygy_Bases
btickler wrote:
...and yet I'm not the one who engaged, and I'm not the one tossing out insults.
You are always the first one to insult others. You've been doing it for a decade and you did it in this instance. Of course you're a fool. Because you are dishonest and think you can get away with it.
In fact based on the wiki i read with the article its based on a 95% confidence interval meaning they are 5% sure their own number is wrong.
No it doesn't. You haven't the faintest clue.
If I were your psychotherapist, I'd be thinking that you seem to be stuck with the same old set of reactive perceptions and you need to move on and learn and grow, but you don't have that ability. The sort of self-assurance and self-confidence that I have only ever works when a person can learn, adapt and change. You seem stuck, incapable of learning and growing.
So I made a joke there, which was fairly subtle, but you automatically reload your impresice set of perceptions and you didn't even realise it was a joke. Your problem is that now you'll want to tell everyone that (a) you know it was a joke and (b) it was a really bad joke and even (c) that I'm hiding behind a joke. But the reality is that when people try to reach out to you in any way, you aren't capable of accepting it as even possibly genuine. And that really is a deficiency, which is sad to behold.
Oh, and I'm multi-talented, confident and open. You're conceited. Try growing up one day.
Your entire engagement here is just a sign of how fixated you are on trying to convince yourself that you've got the high ground. Your jokes are usually veiled jabs at other's expense, or half hearted self-deprecation to prop yourself up. You don't even agree with Tygxc. There was zero reason to even comment, other than your insecurities. I represent a threat to your notion of your curated appearance on the site, and you can't live with it. The attempts at diagnosis from your armchair are laughable, as always.
"Oh, and I'm multi-talented, confident and open. You're conceited."
Best. Line. Ever. Thanks for that. You will probably be seeing it again in future
.