Then derive said results with same number of men as tablebase. That was the purpose of posting my games.
" As for your 7-men position: white is lost, so this cannot result from optimal play by both sides."
Is that what your calculation says? Show the working.
@5755
My calculation is based on positions with > 7 men.
Chess is already strongly solved for 7 men or less by the endgame table base.
So weakly solving chess is from 32 to 8 men.
I agree 7 men drawn positions provide a calibration point.
So I await your KRPP vs. KRP as promised.
I have added a short verification for your irrelevant 7-men position and find good agreement even with top 1 move, not even needing 2-3-4.
@5755
My calculation is based on positions with > 7 men.
Chess is already strongly solved for 7 men or less by the endgame table base.
So weakly solving chess is from 32 to 8 men.
I agree 7 men drawn positions provide a calibration point.
So I await your KRPP vs. KRP as promised.
I have added a short verification for your irrelevant 7-men position and find good agreement even with top 1 move, not even needing 2-3-4.
Your short verification has nothing to do with your "calculations". You've just cribbed it from the engine that's playing the games (which gets it wrong in all the cases).
Your "calculation" is not based on any number of men.
What you mean is you've already tried your "calculation" and it doesn't work.
@5757
I checked the engine against the table base.
So I have tried it on your irrelevant example and it works: top 1 engine move in line with table base.
Now give an KRPP vs. KRP.
@5757
I checked the engine against the table base.
So I have tried it on your irrelevant example and it works: top 1 engine move in line with table base.
Now give an KRPP vs. KRP.
And quite possibly your ICCF players got their first moves right.
You say the position is winning (correctly, according to Syzygy). All the games were drawn That should tell you something about whether the remaining moves were correct.
What do your so called calculations say? The exercise is to check the validity of your method.
I'll give the KRPP vs KRP games when complete, though I think it's still doubtful you'll take any notice. Fifty move games at half an hour per ply take some time.
In the meantime, there's absolutely no reason why the games I posted should be less applicable. Why don't you try those now?
@5759
"You say the position is winning (correctly according to Syzygy)." ++ Yes
"All the games were drawn That should tell you something."
++ You did something wrong. When I check the engine top 1 move against the table base I see agreement, except for move 9, where the engine top move would run into the 50-moves rule if it were applicable. Anyway, this example is not relevant.
"I'll give the KRPP vs KRP games when complete" ++ Post 1 KRPP vs. KRP, do not wait for more.
"it's still doubtful you'll take any notice" ++ I even took notice of the irrelevant position.
"Fifty move games at 34 minutes per ply take some time."
++ Just one position is enough.
It probably will not take 50 moves. Long games are typical for pawnless positions.
tygxc wrote:
'"Fifty move games at 34 minutes per ply take some time."
++ Just one position is enough.
It probably will not take 50 moves. Long games are typical for pawnless positions.'
I don't see how your calculations would say much at all with one game. It's your method we should be examining, but here's one SF15 v SF15 2048 secs per ply (adjudicated by 6 man Syzygy). I await a worked example of your "calculation".
@tygxc thinks a technique of trashy advertising - repeating the product name zillions of times - is an good way to sell his claims. No-one with any expertise is buying.
tygxc wrote:
'"Fifty move games at 34 minutes per ply take some time."
++ Just one position is enough.
It probably will not take 50 moves. Long games are typical for pawnless positions.'
I don't see how your calculations would say much at all with one game. It's your method we should be examining, but here's one SF15 v SF15 2048 secs per ply (adjudicated by 6 man Syzygy).
I now see what he is doing. He has now refined his method so that instead of (inadequately) claiming to consider the top four engine choices for the opponent (reduced to three at some point) - perhaps because even that inadequate approach generates way more than 10^17 positions - he has decided it is necessary to only look at one choice - the top one. To determine the value of an opening line, you just play two very strong engines from the position and accept the result they reach as the evaluation.
There are some tiny problems with that - games from the same opening don't always have the same result, and top choices are definitely not always right - but fundamentally it is only wrong to the same extent as the earlier version was. Which is to say it doesn't work.
"All the games were drawn That should tell you something."
++ You did something wrong. When I check the engine top 1 move against the table base I see agreement, except for move 9, where the engine top move would run into the 50-moves rule if it were applicable. Anyway, this example is not relevant.
...
What are you saying I did wrong? I wasn't playing; it was SF15.
Why is my example irrelevant and KRPP vs KRP relevant?
@5765
"Why is my example irrelevant and KRPP vs KRP relevant?"
++ Your first example cannot be reached from the initial position by optimal play from both sides. That is why it is irrelevant for weakly solving Chess.
@5764
"I now see what he is doing." ++ No, you are not.
"He has now refined his method" ++ No, not at all.
"instead of (inadequately) claiming to consider the top four engine choices for the opponent"
++ No, still for 32 to 7 men: running a desktop for 4.7 h, the table base correct move is among the top 4 engine moves.
"reduced to three at some point" ++ When starting from a drawn ICCF WC game,
there is already one calculated move, so only needing 4 - 1 = 3.
"that inadequate approach generates way more than 10^17 positions"
++ No. The upper bound without transpositions U = (w^(d + 1) - 1) / (w - 1) can exceed 10^17, the lower bound with full transpositions L = e^w is smaller than 10^17.
The geometric mean sqrt (L * U) is smaller than 10^17. So 10^17 is good.
"he has decided it is necessary to only look at one choice - the top one."
++ No, not at all. Only for the irrelevant example given the top 1 move is enough to coincide with the table base, not even necessary to look at top 2, top 3, or top 4.
"To determine the value of an opening line, you just play two very strong engines from the position and accept the result they reach as the evaluation."
++ No, I investigate 4 moves for white: the ICCF played move and 3 alternatives per move, that until the table base or a prior 3-fold repetition.
"as the earlier version" ++ No, there are no 2 versions.
Solved 32 piece chess game needs approximately 3 x 10^60 Bytes of data storage.
@5761
I verified and the engine always plays a table base correct move as its top 1 move. Not always the fastest, but never a mistake.
Now please a KRPP vs. KRP that draws.
[Variant "From Position"]
[FEN "2r5/8/8/2pP3K/2P5/3R2k1/8/8 b - - 0 1"]
1... Kf4 2. Kg6 Ke5 3. Kf7 Rc7+ 4. Ke8 Kd6 5. Rg3 Rc8+ 6. Kf7 Rc7+ 7. Kf6 Ra7 8. Kf5 Ra4 9. Rg6+ Ke7 10. Rg4 Kd6 11. Re4 Kd7 12. Kf4 Ra3 13. Re3 Ra4 14. Rc3 Ra1 15. Kf3 Kc7 16. Re3 Ra4 17. Re4 Kb7 18. Kf4 Kc7 19. Ke5 Ra3 20. Ke6 Rh3 21. Ke7 Rh7+ 22. Ke8 Rh8+ 23. Kf7 Kd8 24. Ke6 Re8+ 25. Kf5 Rf8+ 26. Kg4 Rg8+ 27. Kf3 Rh8 28. Ke2 Rh3 29. Re3 Rh4 30. Kd3 Rh6 31. Rf3 Kc7 32. Rf7+ Kd6 33. Rf8 Rh3+ 34. Kc2 Ke5 35. Re8+ Kd4 36. d6 Rh7 37. Re7 Rh2+ 38. Kb3 Rh3+ 39. Ka4 Kxc4 40. Re4+ Kd3 41. d7 Kxe4 42. d8=Q Rh5 43. Qg8 Rf5 44. Qe6+ Re5 45. Qc4+ Ke3 46. Kb5 Kf3 47. Kc6 Re4 48. Qc2 Rf4 49. Kd5 Ke3 50. Qc1+ Kf3 51. Qf1+ Kg3 52. Qe2 Rf8 53. Qe3+ Kg4 54. Qe4+ Rf4 55. Qg2+ Kf5 56. Qh3+ Kg5 57. Ke5 Rf8 58. Qe3+ Kg6 59. Qg1+ Kh5 60. Qxc5 Rf1 61. Qd5 Rf2 62. Qe4 Rf7 63. Ke6 Rg7 64. Qe3 Kg6 65. Qd3+ Kg5 66. Qd8+ Kh6 67. Qh8+ Kg6 68. Qh4 Ra7 69. Qe4+ Kh5 70. Qh1+ Kg4 71. Qg1+ Kf3 72. Qxa7 Ke2 73. Qd4 Kf3 74. Qd3+ Kg2 75. Qe2+ Kh1 76. Kf5 Kg1 77. Ke4 Kh1 78. Kf3 Kg1 79. Qg2#
@5770
"Solved 32 piece chess game needs approximately 3 x 10^60 Bytes of data storage."
++ No. 10^44 bit is enough. Tromp has proven a 1 to 1 relationship between natural numbers 1...N and chess positions. So an array of 10^44 bit: 0 = draw, 1 = no draw is enough to store a strong solution of Chess.
@5761
I verified and the engine always plays a table base correct move as its top 1 move. Not always the fastest, but never a mistake.
And it draws from a winning position. What are you trying to say?
As I've mentioned before, you don't understand how tablebases work
Now please a KRPP vs. KRP that draws.
Would you like cherries on top? You are the one asserting your method to be correct, you should have checked these things at the outset. Why do you always expect others to fry their chips while you sit back.
As it happens I've kicked off a series of those too, because I knew you'd ask. Results in a few days.
In the meantime there's no reason for you not to apply your calculation to the KRBN vs KQB games I already posted. If they don't work there we can ignore your thesis.
[Variant "From Position"]
[FEN "2r5/8/8/2pP3K/2P5/3R2k1/8/8 b - - 0 1"]
1... Kf4 2. Kg6 Ke5 3. Kf7 Rc7+ 4. Ke8 Kd6 5. Rg3 Rc8+ 6. Kf7 Rc7+ 7. Kf6 Ra7 8. Kf5 Ra4 9. Rg6+ Ke7 10. Rg4 Kd6 11. Re4 Kd7 12. Kf4 Ra3 13. Re3 Ra4 14. Rc3 Ra1 15. Kf3 Kc7 16. Re3 Ra4 17. Re4 Kb7 18. Kf4 Kc7 19. Ke5 Ra3 20. Ke6 Rh3 21. Ke7 Rh7+ 22. Ke8 Rh8+ 23. Kf7 Kd8 24. Ke6 Re8+ 25. Kf5 Rf8+ 26. Kg4 Rg8+ 27. Kf3 Rh8 28. Ke2 Rh3 29. Re3 Rh4 30. Kd3 Rh6 31. Rf3 Kc7 32. Rf7+ Kd6 33. Rf8 Rh3+ 34. Kc2 Ke5 35. Re8+ Kd4 36. d6 Rh7 37. Re7 Rh2+ 38. Kb3 Rh3+ 39. Ka4 Kxc4 40. Re4+ Kd3 41. d7 Kxe4 42. d8=Q Rh5 43. Qg8 Rf5 44. Qe6+ Re5 45. Qc4+ Ke3 46. Kb5 Kf3 47. Kc6 Re4 48. Qc2 Rf4 49. Kd5 Ke3 50. Qc1+ Kf3 51. Qf1+ Kg3 52. Qe2 Rf8 53. Qe3+ Kg4 54. Qe4+ Rf4 55. Qg2+ Kf5 56. Qh3+ Kg5 57. Ke5 Rf8 58. Qe3+ Kg6 59. Qg1+ Kh5 60. Qxc5 Rf1 61. Qd5 Rf2 62. Qe4 Rf7 63. Ke6 Rg7 64. Qe3 Kg6 65. Qd3+ Kg5 66. Qd8+ Kh6 67. Qh8+ Kg6 68. Qh4 Ra7 69. Qe4+ Kh5 70. Qh1+ Kg4 71. Qg1+ Kf3 72. Qxa7 Ke2 73. Qd4 Kf3 74. Qd3+ Kg2 75. Qe2+ Kh1 76. Kf5 Kg1 77. Ke4 Kh1 78. Kf3 Kg1 79. Qg2#
Yes. Syzygy can achieve the correct result. SF15 can't.
The question we were looking at was will @tygxc ever be able to?
@5774
"it draws from a winning position" ++ Not on my computer. It checkmates in 79, see above.
"What are you trying to say?" ++ You do something wrong, or you run a bad version of SF.
"you don't understand how tablebases work" ++ I understand that very well.
"Would you like cherries on top?" ++ No cherries, just a relevant drawn FEN KRPP vs. KRP.
"You are the one asserting your method to be correct" ++ Yes.
"you should have checked these things at the outset" ++ I did.
"Why do you always expect others to fry their chips" ++ I fry a lot of chips, and do not sit back.
"As it happens I've kicked off a series of those too, because I knew you'd ask. Results in a few days." ++ Very well, let us see. One is enough. Hopefully the interface then works again too.
"SF15 can't." ++ I did it with Stockfish 14 NNUE.
"there's no reason for you not to apply your calculation to the KRBN vs KQB games"
++ Are any of these draws? If not they cannot be reached from the initial position by optimal play from both sides, thus are not relevant to weakly solving Chess. If any is a draw, then please post the FEN and I will look at it.
You got sponsors and chess tournaments.
Where money's involved you'll have inside cheating
Lot of my games get disconnected when I start winning
They already know who's gonna win the tournaments
@5774
"it draws from a winning position" ++ Not on my computer. It checkmates in 79, see above.
Very similar to my short think time examples (they're not all drawn from that position). Also very inaccurate. Try running it for 2048 seconds per ply. You're not guaranteed the same game or even the same result, nor even a game with fewer blunders, but I think the same result might be likely.
"What are you trying to say?" ++ You do something wrong, or you run a bad version of SF.
Not true. You just don't know how to use the Syzygy site.
"you don't understand how tablebases work" ++ I understand that very well.
If you understood very well you wouldn't keep posting that they strongly solve 7 man positions under competition rules. They do strongly solve K v K, KB v K and KN v K, but that's all.
"Would you like cherries on top?" ++ No cherries, just a relevant drawn FEN KRPP vs. KRP.
As I said; Coming up. Any chance of you doing some work to check your own hypotheses?
You could start by applying your calculations to the KRBNvKQB games I already posted for you.
Save everybody else a lot of work. We only need one counterexample.
"You are the one asserting your method to be correct" ++ Yes.
"you should have checked these things at the outset" ++ I did.
Obviously not.
"Why do you always expect others to fry their chips" ++ I fry a lot of chips, and do not sit back.
So here is a drawn position.
Produce a series of at least 10 games with think times up to 2048 seconds for it. We'll wait.
Or if you're going to say that position is irrelevant as soon as you can't get your calculation to work, maybe this 8 man draw that you yourself posted earlier in the thread.
We can't check how many errors in that one but we can put a lower bound on it.
Get frying. But preferably after you've applied your calculation to the 23 games I've already posted for the purpose. If you do that first we can all stop talking to you.
"As it happens I've kicked off a series of those too, because I knew you'd ask. Results in a few days." ++ Very well, let us see. Hopefully the interface then works again too.
"SF15 can't." ++ I did it with Stockfish 14 NNUE.
Versus very weak opposition (Stockfish 14 NNUE).
I should have been more precise; SF15 can't always.
@5753
"There's nothing in your calculation that refers to the number of men"
++ There is: results derived from more men than the table base.