Chess will never be solved, here's why

Ok, at this point it should be pretty obvious he's a troll...

But I guess Btickler really enjoys arguing with this sort. Oh well.

Apparently, you don't know much about either linear algebra or quantum computing, or you would understand the references to matrices.  It's okay, you can keep pretending you know stuff, other people that don't know stuff will still believe you.

As for arguing with a troll, well, maybe the mods will let "idiot" go by dozens of times, but now that we have this latest post, let's see what happens...

I think you're well out of date. Cubits haven't been in use since biblical times.

The thing is Linear algebra would be more or less the opposite of quantum computing, butt licker.

Do you know what a quantum state is? DO you know what 6 million of them would be? I.e the diametric opposites of what a linear algebra state would be.....hence why the increase of MOSFETs in a die from millions to billions in meaningless when you move to quantum computing.

You really have taken the word 'linear' and taken it on board as a religion. You're not even within an order of magnitude of modern computing.

How many positions are there of electrons in a Hydrogen molecule? I H and one Deuterium? 2 Deuterium atoms? What would you say would be the energy needed to offset an electron from 2D compared to 2H, or 1H1D?

Never thought about it? [Removed by Staff, please note persistent abuse can lead to action being taken on your account, please follow our terms of service]

I know nothing of the veracity of the computing and scientific terms being discussed, but I am enjoying the dichotomy between the language of an aged scholar and the insults of a young child 😆

@5117
A 146 qubit quantum computer might strongly solve chess by retrograde analysis from 7 men to 8 men and beyond.
Good assistants with conventional computers can weakly solve chess in 5 years.

I did not imply anything in common between the two other than the use of matrices, which was for humor value.  The fixation with "LINEAR" is yours.

Your descent into namecalling and insults just shows that you can't handle a real discussion.  If you have something to say about my assessments of quantum computing (linked earlier) and the applicability of it towards solving chess, put on your big boy pants and make an argument.

Right now you seem to be just spouting stuff from your undergrad classes, and apparently you had a quiz on hydrogen this week.

Oh so you the fact you don't know the differences between the COMPLETELY CONTRASTING verbs imply and infer is just for humour value.

I don't know what 'matrices' you are talking about, I don't think you understand that term either. Suffice it to say that there is no equivalency in quantum computing.......that is the point! If it was just solving the same sums quicker it wold be a byline, it is a fundamental change in how maths is done.

*I find the above pretty funny - if you've been learning English for a week, it is a light joke, any more than a month that.....

The Riemann hypothesis can be solved in six months with one espresso machine, 4 manic-depressives and a ZX81 computer.

@5124
There are several Riemann proof attempts by one person:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.06601.pdf 

Weakly solving chess requires 3 ICCF (grand)masters and 3 cloud engines during 5 years:

3 engines * 10^9 positions/s/engine * 3600 s/h * 24 h/d * 365.25 d/a * 5 a = 10^17 positions

A 146 qubit quantum computer would have to start with 2 men.   

You never take anything in do you? I repeat the example I gave here below.

The position (shown) after move is 34 is mate in 16.

If you query it on the Syzygy site 

https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=8/8/8/8/3k4/8/1R6/K7_w_-_-_68_35

the first move shown is Ka2 which draws.

We don't have any strong solutions to chess under FIDE competition rules with any more than 2 men on the board.

Your good assistants might be able to win the above position (SF15 obviously can't) but if you put another two men on the board they'd probably be better off sitting on a borrowed ZX81, drinking coffee from @Elroch's espresso machine and trying to prove Riemann's hypothesis. (Riemann's hypothesesis cannot be proved without coffee.)

With another one or two men on the board the results are likely to be similar to  the following:

@5128
You do not understand.
You give irrelevant examples that are already strongly solved in the 7-men endgame tablebase.

Weakly solving implies forward calculation from the opening towards the 7-men endgame table base or a prior 3-fold repetition. That can be done in 5 years with existing computers.

Strongly solving means backward calculation from the 7-men endgame table base to 8-men etc.
That is beyond the capability of conventional computers.

As I said. You never take anything in.

How does 35.Ka2 solve the first example I gave?

Or is that simply beyond the capability of @tygxc?

Let me repeat for the forty ninth time. The tablebases do not strongly solve positions under competition rules.

@5125
You never take anything in.
All positions with 7 men or less already are strongly solved.
Look them up in the 7-men endgame table base.

"Look them up in the 7-men endgame table base."

I have done. I've given you a link for it. Are you too lazy to click on it?

@5128
You create irrelevant positions with < 7 men and with the 50-moves rule just before it is invoked.
That is completely irrelevant for solving chess.
Solve chess without the 50-moves rule.
Then that same solution also applies with the 50-moves rule.

He might have meant to write "sweaty".

Are you sure about this?

Right, I've done a bit of python so I'm off to write a chess engine that will crush Stockfish and might even hold it's own against Niemann.

Only if you're a moron.

But the topic our foregoing exchanges was whether the tablebases strongly solve positions with 7 men or less. You seem to be trying to change it.

Chess Is a completely solved and calculated Game. You can win a chess Game if You already calculated the Best way in a position. Is solved beacause si a square, with a x limit of units. Even if it isbfar for away for a human to calculated everything that does not mean is solved. Computers already did. When You said a 3000 elo vs 10000 elo. The thing is ofc there are positions with a only Best move as There are positions with forced checks.. The thing is that is better the one that calculated the farest Best move after a X amount of moves in the future. Chess in fact is draw if played correctly 2 lemas:. *The player who loses is because Made a mistake. *The player who wind is because less mistakes. Instead, computers play practically 99.9% of the game correctly... In some years Will be 100% and they the game of chess Will be just finished. And that without talking about how the most of Gm are just draws.. and they are humans. But lets be happy. Humans.. atleast standar human players Will never do that. So for general people it is not going to be solved.