I love this.
You love what, your account being closed for fair play violations?
The attention. He is one of the 99.9%
He was also apparently nice enough to identify his next account to be closed 
...
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-solved-heres-why?page=302#comment-72735805
I love this.
You love what, your account being closed for fair play violations?
Oldhead moment
Oldhead moment
There's also the whole pretending to be a woman while trolling thing...which is why you changed username and avatar to begin with.
Oldhead moment
There's also the whole pretending to be a woman while trolling thing...
Grandad, you thought my account was closed. You've clearly gone a bit senile.
Oldhead moment
There's also the whole pretending to be a woman while trolling thing...
Grandad, you thought my account was closed. You've clearly gone a bit senile.
I didn't actually say your account was closed for fair play violations. What I did was point out that you are juvenile, and that you outed your other sockpuppet account (and upvoted yourself on both accounts, which I downvoted back to 0). Hopefully some mod will come by and check the IPs and take the appropriate action. But keep talking 
.
We should rename this thread lets all troll each other.
Oldhead moment
There's also the whole pretending to be a woman while trolling thing...
Grandad, you thought my account was closed. You've clearly gone a bit senile.
I didn't actually say your account was closed for fair play violations. What I did was point out that you are juvenile, and that you outed your other sockpuppet account (and upvoted yourself on both accounts, which I downvoted back to 0). Hopefully some mod will come by and check the IPs and take the appropriate action. But keep talking .
LMAO
Brian, take your meds
LMAO
Brian, take your meds
We'll see who's still around a year from now. Meanwhile, both your assumptions here are off.
@6044
As you did not yet post any drawn KRPP vs. KRP, I post one:
The engine top 1 move is always table base exact.
This is not surprising: as most chess positions are at 26 men, it is only logical that most errors are around 26 men too.
The top 4 engine moves contain the table base exact move.
More to the point, when can we expect you to stop wriggling and post the calculations you already promised?
@6084
"post the calculations"
++ I previously posted calculations of two of your irrevelant positions. The engine top 1 move coincided with the top 1 engine move. You had some problem with your Stockfish version. I have now posted a relevant position. The engine top 1 move coincides with the table base exact move.
@6071
"an example from the 7-piece tablebase where the engine top choice is a tablebase blunder"
++ No, there is no such relevant example.
KNN vs. KP is an anomaly because KNN vs. KP is an anomaly: it is a draw despite +6 material advantage. Likewise another anomaly is KB+ wrong RP, which is a draw despite +4 material advantage.
The 50-moves rule is not relevant to weakly solving chess: black can achieve the game theoretic value of a draw without invoking the 50-moves rule, as we know from ICCF WC draws that are > 99% sure to be perfect games with optimal play from both sides: none invoked the 50-moves rule to draw, most did not even last 50 moves before a 7-men endgame table base draw or a 3-fold repetition was reached.
I recall someone (sorry, can't recall who after this time) posted examples of where Stockfish blundered in a 7 piece tablebase position earlier in one of the very similar discussions.
Please can they repost if possible?
The 50-move rule CANNOT be ignored, because a program that did so would sometimes have the wrong leaf values in analysis and could make bad decisions based on those inaccurate values.
@6087
"examples of where Stockfish blundered in a 7 piece tablebase position"
++ That was MARattigan, but he did something wrong with his Stockfish version and/or the position was not relevant and/or it was only because of the 50-moves rule.
"The 50-move rule CANNOT be ignored" ++ The 50-moves rule CAN and SHOULD be ignored in weakly solving Chess. The 50-moves rule is never invoked in perfect play where both sides play optimally, as we know from ICCF WC draws, > 99% sure to be perfect games. The weak solution of chess without the 50-moves rule also applies to chess with the 50-moves rule.
@6084
"post the calculations"
++ I previously posted calculations of two of your irrevelant positions.
Simple lie. You haven't posted calculations of any of the positions I posted.
The engine top 1 move coincided with the top 1 engine move.
You're talking about my post here and your response here, I assume.
Firstly, I think you'll find the engine top 1 move coincides with the top 1 engine move whatever game played by an engine you consider. (As you yourself remarked it didn't always coincide with with the top 1 move of your unspecified tablebase.)
In my 2048 second think time per ply game there were 4 errors under basic rules and at least 1 error under competition rules
You posted your example about an hour later without saying what think time was used (did you even use Stockfish 15?). It obviously couldn't have been 2048 seconds per ply because that would have taken over three and a half days to complete.
You had some problem with your Stockfish version.
You ignored my response here. I repeat:
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.
Instead you continue to vacuously assert I had a problem with my Stockfish version.
I had not and do not have a problem with my Stockfish version.
The fact that SF15's error rate at 2048 seconds per ply is greater than some examples with much shorter times is probably just another case of minimax pathology, a phenomenon you apparently find impossible to grasp. But you don't always get the same results with the same engine and the same think time anyway.
I have now posted a relevant position. The engine top 1 move coincides with the table base exact move.
Yes, it's a relevant position. So is this:
Your calculations take no account of the position from which a game is won, so all positions are relevant to checking the validity of your method of calculation.
You continue to use the word "relevant" as if it's an intrinsic property of something that doesn't change with context. If something is relevant then it's relevant to something.
The games from the positions I've posted may not be relevant, in your head, to your vague proposals of a procedure for weakly solving chess, but they are relevant to checking if your calculations do what you claim they do.
If they don't then we can forget about your proposals of a procedure for weakly solving chess, because the validity of your calculations is essential to your argument.
So why don't you stop wriggling and post your calculations for the games here? Then we can stop all this pointless discussion about your proposal to solve chess in five years.
@6089
"You haven't posted calculations of any of the positions I posted."
++ Yes, I did. I pointed out your problem with your version of Stockfish.
"the engine top 1 move coincides with the top 1 engine move"
++ No, the engine top 1 move coincides with the 7-men table base correct move.
"As you yourself remarked it didn't always coincide with with the top 1 move"
++ No, the top 1 engine move did coincide with the table base correct move.
"In my 2048 second think time per ply game" ++ The position is not relevant to solving chess and you did something wrong with your version of Stockfish.
"what think time was used" ++ Much shorter, about 30 minutes for the whole line.
"did you even use Stockfish 15?" ++ No, I used 14, as I wrote above.
"It obviously couldn't have been 2048 seconds" ++ No, much shorter was enough to have the top 1 move coincide with the table base correct move.
"Try running it for 2048 seconds per ply." ++ If I already get the top 1 engine move to coincide with the table base correct move, there is no need for 4 alternatives or a longer thinking time.
"I had a problem with my Stockfish version." ++ Yes you did. I get full coincidence of the top 1 engine move and in less time than you. So you have a problem.
"Yes, it's a relevant position." ++ Glad you at least agree on that. Do you also arrive at coincidence of the top 1 engine move with the table bases exact move?
"all positions are relevant to checking the validity of your method of calculation"
++ No, the estimates of perfect play are derived from nearly perfect play.
Positions that cannot result from optimal play by both players are not relevant.
"If something is relevant then it's relevant to something."
++ 10^17 positions are relevant to weakly solving Chess and 10^44 are not, though legal.
"proposals of a procedure for weakly solving chess" ++ I have explained the procedure. Start from a drawn ICCF WC game. Analyse 3 alternatives for the last move, then the 2nd to last move etc. until a position from another ICCF WC draw is reached.
Here is another relevant example: the engine top 1 move coincides with the table base exact move
I have just noticed a slight problem. Use 2048 seconds on 10^17 positions (ignoring the huge inadequacy of this number) and you need 6.6 trillion years.
@6091
"I have just noticed a slight problem." ++ A problem with your arithmetic...
"Use 2048 seconds"
++ No, 17 seconds per white move, in which 17 billion positions are evaluated per engine.
"you need 6.6 trillion years" ++ No, you calculate wrong.
10^9 positions/s/engine * 3 engines * 3600 s/h * 24 h/d * 365.25 d/a * 5 a = 4.7 * 10^17
Unbelieveable numbers? No not really. The only unbelieveable number is that you are still going on about this 305 pages later. Some people need to get a life. Try playing chess, instead of arguing about it.
@6091
"I have just noticed a slight problem." ++ A problem with your arithmetic...
"Use 2048 seconds"
++ No, 17 seconds per white move, in which 17 billion positions are evaluated per engine.
"you need 6.6 trillion years" ++ No, you calculate wrong.
10^9 positions/s/engine * 3 engines * 3600 s/h * 24 h/d * 365.25 d/a * 5 a = 4.7 * 10^17
Every new position requires an evaluation in your cockamamy approach - either picking a strategy move or ranking the top few defensive moves according to an engine. The latter is of course inadequate to solve chess but, in addition, if you use a cursory evaluation you have more chance of missing a good move.
I love this.
You love what, your account being closed for fair play violations?