KorvenDalas escribió:
I love chess
Me too
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Sep 27, 2022
0
#4183
Optimissed wrote:
... MAR is finally taking on Elroch. ...
I wouldn't get yourself overexcited Optimissed.
I said only that your comment, "game theory cannot apply to the solving of chess" was correct in my opinion, based on "chess" meaning one of the games described in the FIDE handbook, which are not zero sum games. I didn't say that any of your preceding arguments on the point had any merit, they're just up to your normal standard.
My comment was intended more as a criticism of FIDE's formulation of the rules than a serious comment on game theory. Game theory obviously applies with suitable modifications of FIDE's formulation.
In fact, I was probably wrong to say that "chess" means, to most people, the games described in the FIDE handbook. Most people, I believe, would say, for instance, that it is not allowed in chess for White to begin the game by moving a black piece.
Sep 27, 2022
0
#4184
tygxc wrote:
@5403
"You can use whatever method you like. Tea leaves, Tarot cards, Astrology, whatever."
++ Ramanujan said the Goddess Namagiri Thayar revealed him mathematical theorems.
"extrapolation does not provide certainty" ++ It does not need to be exact.
1 error in 10^20 positions or 10^19 or 10^21 does not matter. Approximate is enough.
"NEVER provides proof"
++ Proof is evidence that compels the mind to accept a fact or truth.
Every con man would love your definition.
No. Proof is something that could (in principle or even in practice) be verified by a computer. Anything weaker is vulnerable to being wrong.
For example, this has actually been done for the 4 Colour Theorem and for the solution of checkers (the former using a general proof assistant, the latter an exhaustive verification of explicit strategies). You are hawking a second-rate alternative.
@5401
"love your definition." ++ Not my definition: that of Webster
"Proof is something that could (in principle or even in practice) be verified by a computer."
++ No. Most mathematical proofs were not and could not be verified by a computer.
All proofs before 1976 would be disqualified by your logic.
"vulnerable to being wrong" ++ All proofs are vulnerable to being wrong.
There have been published several proofs of the Riemann Hypothesis.
'We cannot prove it for it might be wrong' is a non-argument.
"this has actually been done for the 4 Colour Theorem" ++ It was partly wrong at the start.
"You are hawking a second-rate alternative."
++ No, I prefer a smart way that works over a stupid way that does not work.
For the smart way the human assistants are vital.
GM Sveshnikov named the assistants first and the computers second.
They set up the calculation, as was also done for the solution of Losing Chess.
They apply a few rules as Allis did for Connect Four.
They agree on a draw when neither side can win or resign when a loss is inevitable,
just like they do in ICCF games.
It is stupid to demand playing on until checkmate, or 3-fold repetition.
We need the 3 engines 24/7 during 5 years to work on the 10^17 relevant positions.
If you dilute each relevant position in a million irrelevant positions,
then you are bound for 5 million years.
Optimissed wrote:
I gave 170, old fruit; not 160. The actual figure was 169 obtained four or five times from some Eysenck intelligence tests I took when I was recovering from infectious hepatitis in about 1977. I have stuck to 170 as a conservative estimate and am sure I could have scored higher, if I hadn't been recovering from a very serious disease, where I was in a coma for at least two days. Indeed, I looked at the results and wondered with embarrassment how I could have made such elementary mistakes. But then, to achieve such a score, you have to complete the tests extremely fast. Indeed, it's the speed you do them rather than getting the odd one wrong. And of course, the mistakes I made wouldn't have been elementary ones to you. You would have scored about 130 to 135, which is about your intelligence level. 160 would put me on about a level with my wife. Mensa measured her as either 156 or 158 in the early 1980s, before I met her. She can't remember if it was 156 or 158. I would guess 156. She is pretty bright though, all the same.
These days I never bother to read your entire posts. I just alight on some egotistic claim or other. I'm pretty sure your posts would be interminably repetitive and dull if they were read in their entirety. Indeed, this kind of thing is also off-topic, although I think that MAR and I have established that Elroch is wrong about Game Theory and Solving Chess.
Lol. So 156 or 158 and you have decided it's 156. How very, very you to (a) assume the lower for your poor wife, and (b) make a judgment about someone's IQ at a level of detail you are wholly unqualified to assess.
You must be a joy to live with 
. Luckily for you, your wife apparently shares your love of all things IQ, which must make her job harder since the measurement has been worthless for so long now and will be frowned upon among well-read colleagues.
You took the test many times (more than many, in a relative sense compared with most people), no doubt because not reaching 170 was so frustrating for you...which invalidates the results.
Sep 27, 2022
0
#4187
btickler wrote:
...
...and someone with an actual 160 IQ would have theoretically figured this out by the age of 70 , if IQ actually meant what you'd like it to mean.
Possibly he's got the two figures mixed up.
That would seem likely because he can't read the topics of the threads he posts in. He thinks
"Chess will never be solved, here's why" says
"Chess will never be solved, here's why and what is Optimissed's IQ"
and "Chess Will Never Be 100% Analyzed. Why?" says
"Chess Will Never Be 100% Analyzed. Why? and what is Optimissed's IQ"
and "True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides" says
"True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides and what is Optimissed's IQ"
and ...
Optimissed wrote:
For posterity. 170, Rat. And 71.
Must be strong stuff, that. I wonder what btickler thinks IQ is. At a guess, he did an online test and came out at 160. Realises it isn't anywhere near true and thinks everyone else (but him!) is so dumb that they do online tests. And that's why he's got 160 on the brain.
I don't have it on the brain. Your oft self-reported reported IQ is in the 160s.
IQ stands for "Intelligence Quotient". A quotient is a quantity derived by dividing one number, the dividend, by another number, the divisor. Anyone remember this stuff from grade school? So next question....does anyone remember what the dividend and the divisor are to determine the quotient....in this case, "Intelligence Quotient"? In other words, what do we divide by what to get IQ?
Optimissed wrote:
But 169 as a minimum. I was recovering from a severe illness when I took the series of tests. I had bad days and better days.
You do have it on your mind or you wouldn't have raised the subject. Also I was doing an experiment, as I pointed out. On a good day I would have gone a lot higher than 169. I estimated I could probably have scored 185. You simply don't know what you're dealing with. It's totally outside your experience. You imagine someone like me will write things you agree with all the time but if I did do that, it would mean that I wasn't what I am.
I only used that strategy because I was winning all the arguments and that didn't go down well, so they were being sidestepped and eventually I was being told I'm stupid. I don't have to react to that but telling you my IQ seems to cause you so much general confusion, hysteria and distress that it seemed a good idea. It's actually rather funny.
Anyway, you don't have a leg to stand on because you yourself made a big issue of it.
As I said, in the 160s. Why continue to bridle at an accurate statement?
To think that because you claimed to score 169 while sick that 185 should be more accurate is ludicrous. You also bandied about the number 190 at one point long ago when you made the claim that your IQ fluctuates between 160 and 190 on good and bad days. So, in your world, one day you are arguably the smartest man in this century, and the next you are just 1 of about 8,000 people.
But this is all belied by the fact that someone with such a high IQ would not be so easy to wind up with a tactic as obvious and simple as "in the 160s".
P.S. Ask your wife to explain to you that hysteria is a made up malady.
Sep 27, 2022
0
#4191
Quotient: from Latin quotiens, meaning "how often". As how many times does A go into B. Beside math, it can mean a certain quantity or share--as "He certainly has his full quotient of bravado."
The original conception was to divide a person's "mental age" (their test score) by their physical age, then multiply by 100. Now the test score is compared to the mass of previous scores and placed according to how many standard deviations (15) it differs from the average 100).
Optimissed wrote:
I'm trying to ignore you as best I can but you're definitely mentally ill. There isn't any doubt about it.
[and]
...according to btickler's link from last week...
If responding to my every post is you ignoring me, I'm glad I'm not your friend .
Mental illness is not something I would take your judgment about, all things considered. I will say I am surprised that you would take something I posted and deem it worth incorporating into your delusions...every port in a storm, I guess.
Optimissed wrote:
Also, I wish you would stop mentioning my wife. I believe you have probably mentioned her 20 times at least over the months and years. She isn't a member here and doesn't play chess. Also I am absolutely sure that she would say that you're mentally ill. She was a fully trained psychiatric nurse before training as a teacher and then as a psychotherapist. She worked on both long-stay and acute psychiatric wards and gained a lot of experience in a short time. Please don't bring her up again, because I am confident about what she would think of you and I really don't want to have to mention it again.
Ermm, you brought her up when you were originally trying to diagnose various posters over the Internet . You also brought her up here in this thread, before I did. Perhaps you should avoid making calls to authority if you don't want that authority to be a point of discussion? This seems obvious enough, but perhaps you need to ponder the notion.
P.S. I am sure I have not mentioned her 20 times, probably under ten times in as many years...and I am doubly sure I have never said a single negative thing about her. You seem to have contracted ExploringWA's illness, where every mention of anyone in your life (after expounding upon them yourself) is an attack on them.
I was going to try to work in a joke about a 70 year old with a 160 IQ having the mental age of a 112 year old.......but at this point I don't think it works. Oh well. Never mind.....but I am gratified that a few people actually do remember the origin of the concept.
@5419
"I think chess will eventually be solved" ++ Probably, depends on money 3 million $.
"Just not in our lifetimes" ++ Maybe, depends on money 3 million $.
"I do think we will eventually have the technology?" ++ We already have it.
"Is it technology we understand now?" ++ Yes.
One way the discussion here could make some progress here by tygxc or someone else is by accepting that all of the "proof" and calculations presented here (number of relevant positions and relevant lines, calculation abilities of current computers) are all estimates.
Tygxc is actually putting in some real effort to make real calculations but is too tied in with the 5 years and other presumptions, presenting them and all calculations based on these presumptions as facts. Only thing we got is an estimation based on calculations with all variables being optimal. Would like to see a range of estimations having the variables suboptimal, like for example assuming we need to calculate a (exponentially) larger amount of relevant lines and positions than tygxc is estimating and similar approach with other variables in this equation. See what kind of opposing estimations we end up with, that perhaps demonstrate why this wouldn't be a realistic goal in our lifetime.
Right now there is some abstract discussion and objections that don't necessarily lead anywhere while Tygxc has taken a concrete but shallow path. I certainly cba to make any calculations but in case someone feels inspired
Optimissed wrote:
<<You seem to have contracted ExploringWA's illness, where every mention of anyone in your life (after expounding upon them yourself) is an attack on them.>>
It definitely seems more like 20. It isn't an attack on her but you see it as an attack on me. However, she's a realistic person who knows that there are people running around who are not well. No mental health professional is going to look at you and think you're well.
Is she is realistic, she won't go near your over-the-internet diagnosis with a 10 foot pole. I suspect she would roast you with potatoes and rosemary if she knew what you've been doing here. I would guess she might say something like: "Roger! That logical, rational man even told you to stop bringing me into the discussion if you didn't like me being discussed and then you immediately turned right around and did it again! I'm glad you stopped doing this at our dinner parties, but online is really no better...stop hiding things from me. I can't believe you are back on the IQ carousel, either. At least you haven't gone back into that nonsense about your "powers"...that girl ruined your life...wait, what?"
You should try to realise that you are obsessive-compulsive and its severe, so it's a disorder. I know that coming from me, you aren't going to take a blind bit of notice but you aren't a happy person, to the extent that it's affecting you negatively. For your own sake, try to understand that you may have some role models here who are extremely negative and bad for you. I'm not trying to harm you. I would like to help but that isn't possible until you see that there's something not quite right.
The only thing not quite right is your worldview in general. Your self-awareness is non-existent. "Holier than thou" only has a chance of working if you are not the poster child for everything you try to accuse others of.
I don't have any role models here anymore, actually.
[and]
There are too many people in this thread reinforcing your views and the way you act. I think you should drop all attempts to try to correct other people's behaviour and just interact in threads in a friendly and non-threatening way. Try to make people like you. I don't mean the wrong people either ... the ones who are the bad role models. Just ordinary, happy, friendly people. Just learn to interact non-threateningly and in a friendly way.
Well, I guess I could do it like you do it...I could act generally friendly until someone implies I am wrong, then call them idiots and imbeciles, pretend I am smarter than everyone else, and condescend to them by pretending to diagnose their "problems"? Then return to my veneer of reasonability until the next person crosses me? Does that seem to work for you with other people? Because somehow it doesn't seem to work on me, so I cannot see the utility of it.
It would do you a lot of good if you could manage it.
Read your entire post and apply it to the correct target...yourself. Now read my post, and remove your ego-driven assumptions about me being upset about you, and accept that you do not come across as wise or competent, but as a hypocrite who is oblivious to his own behavior.
It would do you a lot of good...if you could manage it,
@5449
"number of relevant positions" ++ Yes, 10^17 is an estimate arrived at in 2 ways:
1) top down from number of legal positions 10^44, then discarding positions that cannot result from optimal play to 10^32, then applying analogy to Checkers and Losing Chess to 10^17.
2) bottom up calculating an upper bound assuming no transpositions, calculating a lower bound assuming all transpositions, then taking the geometric mean, then adding more to 10^17.
"abilities of current computers" ++ That is established: a billion positions / s
https://chessify.me/blog/nps-what-are-the-nodes-per-second-in-chess-engine-analysis
"larger amount of relevant lines and positions than tygxc is estimating"
Here is some dispute.
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? is a sure loss for white, checkmate in 82. Thus that position and the whole tree that could result from it is not relevant and a waste of computer time.
AlphaZero ranked all 20 opening moves from best to worst with no other input but the Laws of Chess. https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.09259 Figures 5 & 31. Once the 4 best moves 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, 1 Nf3 are proven draws, then the 16 worst moves cannot win either and thus are irrelevant.
The final position of this game https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164259 is a clear draw.
Neither side can win. This position and the whole tree that can result from it until 3-fold repetition is irrelevant and a waste of computer time.
"a realistic goal in our lifetime"
++ It is realistic, can be done in 5 years,
but costs 3 million $ to hire the 3 ICCF (grand)masters and rent the 3 cloud engines.
"objections that don't necessarily lead anywhere"
++ Yes, e.g. the completely irrelevant 50-moves rule.
Am new yeah!!!
Sep 28, 2022
0
#4200
When Chinook had evaluated all the legal openings in checkers, no-one was foolish enough to suggest it was ok to ignore all but 4 of them when solving checkers. That is because they understood what solving a game means to those who do research in this area.
Everyone knows that @tygxc uses his own special language where "solve" means something entirely different, while failing to understand that if you change the definition, you don't answer the question, you answer a different question.
I love chess