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 😆
Which is which? I think btickler is correct about all of this but I find myself cheering for tygxc and the croc for some reason.
@5132
See here for example
https://www.dwavesys.com/solutions-and-products/ocean/
Stockfish is open source and written in C++.
So you can translate it to Python and then run it on a quantum computer with Ocean.
Google uses Cirq
https://quantumai.google/cirq/google/concepts
IBM allows Python with its Qiskit
https://www.ibm.com/quantum/developers
@5133
"the topic our foregoing exchanges was whether the tablebases strongly solve positions with 7 men or less."
++ Of course they do.
The topic of the thread is solving chess, i.e. solving > 7 men. The 50-moves rule is irrelevant.
If chess is solved without the 50-moves rule, then that same solution applies with the rule.
Maybe morons are unable to understand that.
@5133
"the topic our foregoing exchanges was whether the tablebases strongly solve positions with 7 men or less."
++ Of course they do.
Does that mean you think something that recommends a draw from a winning position constitutes a solution or just that you still haven't worked up the energy to drag your cursor to my link?
The topic of the thread is solving chess, i.e. solving > 7 men. The 50-moves rule is irrelevant.
If chess is solved without the 50-moves rule, then that same solution applies with the rule.
Maybe morons are unable to understand that.
Only the more intelligent ones obviously.
They would probably decide that if the solutions are different from five man positions and the solutions are different from six man positions and the solutions are different from seven man positions and the solutions are different from eight man positions that they couldn't understand why they may not be different from a thirty two man position.
Which is which? I think btickler is correct about all of this but I find myself cheering for tygxc and the croc for some reason.
I guess you're going to have a difficult time cheering for the croc for a while.
Yes his assumption about storage is off-beam but his style is immensely enjoyable.
It's enjoyable for you because it mirrors your own namecalling...er, "style", only with even cruder insults. 
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 😆
Which is which? I think btickler is correct about all of this but I find myself cheering for tygxc and the croc for some reason.
No, I'm right but my thinking is far more advanced and concise than the others' so no-one understands it. But cheering for ty and el croc is like cheering for Ipswich when they're playing Wigan.
Oh sh££££t did I get that right? Maybe I didn't.
Ipswich refers to the town I was living in when I created my account, not my football allegiance. But I believe you are correct regarding in inferring that Wigan Athletic would currently stand an excellent chance of beating Ipswich Town.
@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.
...
About three quarters of 7 man endgame classifications contain positions with castling rights. You may not be able to use the tablebases to adjudicate until you reach 3 men.
The only position I posted that I created was the first. The fifty move rule is irrelevant.
This would have done just as well.
It's still mate in 16 and Syzygy still recommends Ka2 which draws in 1.
I'll give you a link for that too
https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=8/8/8/8/3k4/8/1R6/K7_w_-_-_39_21
because it's obvious if you're too lazy to click on a link, making your own would be out of the question.
(But SF15 would manage that mate; that's why I put the leading moves into the first version.)
Edit: SF15 still can't manage it in 16, I just tried. Tarrasch/SF15 took 19 moves to mate, but if you play the position as Black against chess.com/sf15 (click on the magnifying glass) you will find it draws in 1 without any tablebase assistance. That's because the chess.com GUI, in common with yourself, can't tell the difference between a basic rules position and a competition rules game state.
@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.
...
About three quarters of 7 man endgame classifications contain positions with castling rights.
Here you must mean the classifications by material type, with huge numbers of positions.
Very few positions have castling rights. Moreover, once a position does not have castling rights, the same is true of every position reached from it (of course).
You may not be able to use the tablebases to adjudicate until you reach 3 men.
The only position I posted that I created was the first. The fifty move rule is irrelevant.
This would have done just as well.
It's still mate in 16 and Syzygy still recommends Ka2 which draws in 1.
I'll give you a link for that too
https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=8/8/8/8/3k4/8/1R6/K7_w_-_-_39_21
because it's obvious if you're too lazy to click on a link, making your own would be out of the question.
(But SF15 would manage that mate; that's why I put the leading moves into the first version.)
Edit: SF15 still can't manage it in 16, I just tried. Tarrasch/SF15 took 19 moves to mate, but if you play the position as Black against chess.com/sf15 (click on the magnifying glass) you will find it draws in 1 without any tablebase assistance. That's because the chess.com GUI, in common with yourself, can't tell the difference between a basic rules position and a competition rules game state.
Tricky, this! Given that the number of competitions rules states is enormously large, as I (and others) have mentioned.
...
Solve chess without the 50-moves rule.
Then that same solution also applies with the 50-moves rule.
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.
I tend to think that tygxc is right on that one. At some point too, it's necessary to relax the emphasis on deductive reasoning. As I pointed out to Elroch, you can't solve chess without the mind of a scientist and for all the riduculous stuff about five years, tygxc still thinks more like a scientist than most of the others. A scientist with an unfortunate obsession, maybe, like Benny Hill in The Italian Job. Of course, I doubt Elroch believes me but nevertheless, with a mindset in which we can't know if 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses for white, science isn't being allowed to play a part. It's as though he and others have never heard of successive approximations and closing in on an accurate result incrementally. No, for them it's got to be all worked out deductively. That's rubbish.
Let's be clear here. This is not an objective disagreement (the interesting kind). It is a worthless semantic disagreement. "Worthless" because if you avoid using the same word for two different things, there is no disagreement. Those who contribute to the peer-reviewed literature say chess is too complex to solve. You and @tygxc say "no, let's change the meaning of solve, and then we can say we can solve it". Using the same word for two different things and then failing to acknowledge you are doing this is obfuscation, and its only contribution to objective knowledge is to make it more difficult to communicate about it.
A concrete example is 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6. Regarding the weak solution of chess (same meaning as the entire peer-reviewed literature), this is an unproven case requiring proof if this position can be reached from either of the two candidate strategies.
All of us agree it is very likely a win for white. Some don't understand that it be an excellent bet - maybe one you could stake your life on - but not epistemiologically justifying certainty. They erroneously think that induction from the tiny amount of existing chess praxis by flawed humans and engine including, say, an evaluation of 500 centipawns (like many positions that are not won) and a LeelaZero evaluation of 99.8% (or whatever it is) is enough to be certain. No, it ain't. Maybe you could stake your like on it, but staking your life on 10^20 such examples all being correct would be suicidal.
@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.
...
About three quarters of 7 man endgame classifications contain positions with castling rights.
Here you must mean the classifications by material type, with huge numbers of positions.
Yes. That's what "endgame classification" normally means.
Very few positions have castling rights. Moreover, once a position does not have castling rights, the same is true of every position reached from it (of course).
Obviously.
You may not be able to use the tablebases to adjudicate until you reach 3 men.
The only position I posted that I created was the first. The fifty move rule is irrelevant.
This would have done just as well.
It's still mate in 16 and Syzygy still recommends Ka2 which draws in 1.
I'll give you a link for that too
https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=8/8/8/8/3k4/8/1R6/K7_w_-_-_39_21
because it's obvious if you're too lazy to click on a link, making your own would be out of the question.
(But SF15 would manage that mate; that's why I put the leading moves into the first version.)
Edit: SF15 still can't manage it in 16, I just tried. Tarrasch/SF15 took 19 moves to mate, but if you play the position as Black against chess.com/sf15 (click on the magnifying glass) you will find it draws in 1 without any tablebase assistance. That's because the chess.com GUI, in common with yourself, can't tell the difference between a basic rules position and a competition rules game state.
Tricky, this! Given that the number of competitions rules states is enormously large, as I (and others) have mentioned.
Not tricky at all.
Arena and Tarrasch manage it. All the GUI needs to do after move 20 is send
position fen 8/8/8/4k3/8/8/1R6/K7 b - - 0 1 moves e5d4 a1a2 d4c3 b2h2 c3d4 h2b2 d4d3 a2b1 d3c3 b2h2 c3d4 h2b2 d4c3 b2h2c3d4 h2b2 d4c3 b2g2 c3d3 b1a1 d3d4 g2a2 d4c3 a2g2 c3d4 g2a2 d4c3 a2f2 c3d3 f2f1 d3d4 f1b1 d4c3 b1f1 c3d4 f1f2 d4c4 f2b2 c4d4
over the UCI interface, as recommended by the SF developers and as Arena and Tarrasch obviously do, instead of
position fen 8/8/8/8/3k4/8/1R6/K7 w - - 39 21
as chess.com obviously does.
@Optimissed re:
That is a ludicrous misrepresentation.
Certainly what @tygxc says at any rate. In your case it should be "let's change the meaning of solve, and then we can still say we can't solve it".
Well you still haven't shown us your win as Black against SF after 1.e4 e5 2.Ba6. Why don't you do that first before continuing to post that you can tell what lines are random and losing.
It would give you some credibility.
If you could do it against something that can mate with a rook and king against a lone king that would be even better, but let's see how you do against SF first.
Chess Is a completely solved and calculated Game.
No it isn't. The fact that computers are good does not mean it's solved. In fact it may be that there will be computers in the future that can always beat today's computers.