I love this.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Oct 12, 2022
0
#4624
tygxc wrote:
"The engine AZ in the paper was presumably run on a Google's TPUs. From where did you get the equivalence?" ++ In the previous discussion somebody posted the NPS of the engine of the paper. So I converted to the 10^9 NPS of the current top engines.
Somebody posted where? I must have missed that. (Was it a peer reviewed post?)
Do you expect SF15 NPS to be the same as AZ NPS?
No harm done. The games I posted here all used SF15 and were run on an Intel(R) Pentium(R) CPU J3710 @ 1.60GHz with 2GB hash storage, so you can try your calculations on those.
"I'm not talking about weakly solving chess" ++ I am, that is the topic of this thread.
But you have previously talked about your calculations to determine the game theoretic value of the starting position and the expected error rates in SF15, which you say relate to the feasibility of your proposals. Why the sudden coyness?
"you haven't posted a sensible description" ++ Yes several times. Take ICCF WC draws.
Analyse 3 alternatives per white move until a table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition.
Well, if you post your calculations we needn't go into that.
"calculations of game-theoretic result and error rates extracted from games"
++ The game theoretic result and the error rate are derived from ICCF WC draws. 136 games of which 9 decisive. It is impossible to fit a Poisson distribution with 127 / 136 probability of an odd number of errors / game, thus the game theoretic calue of Chess must be a draw.
Fitting a Poisson distribution with 9 / 126 probability of an odd number of errors / game is possible and leads to the error rate of 7 errors per 100 games.
Some detail missing, but you can supply full details when you apply them to the games here. That will give you the advantage of knowing that the games you base your calculations on are played by the vehicle you intend to use and you have the exact values for the time used.
"If they work they should work from all positions."
++ No, there are known anomalies like KNN vs. K, KB + wrong R-pawn vs. K
So you're now saying your calculations don't work even before you try them out on my games. Would the anomalies include KNN vs KP, KRBN vs KQR and KRPP vs KRP as well? If not you could try them on my games here and see if they work in general.
"How is any of that relevant to your calculation?"
++ Rook endings will occur most and are most relevant to weakly solving chess.
I ask again; how is that relevant to your calculation?
"one of the positions is a drawn KRPP vs. KRP position anyway."
++ No, see top right in your image: White is winning DTZ 101.
It is a draw only by the 50-moves rule. Black can draw from the initial position without the 50-moves rule, so this position cannot be reached from optimal play by both sides.
And you're considering games with the 50 move rule in effect so it's a draw.
"as were the games on which you base your calculations of the error rates you claim as is"
++ In none of these games was the 50-moves rule triggered.
So it does not matter if it was in effect or not.
The 50 move rule was triggered in some of the games I posted.
In ICCF games the players prefer to agree a draw or play into a triple repetition because they get more time in the pub. Totally irrelevant to your calculations.
"the game you offer to solve with SF15 which is also designed to play with the 50 move rule"
++ The rule may be in effect, but does not trigger, i.e. it is the same as if it is not in effect.
See last comment.
"It's the validity of the calculation I'm asking you to check."
++ So what drawn KRPP vs. KRP position do you propose?
I don't propose a drawn KRPP vs KRP position in particular. If your calculations work they should work irrespective of material or theoretical result.
I'm suggesting you try your calculations on each of the sets of games I posted, not just the games from the drawn KRPP vs KRP position I posted.
"How can you presume to "calculate" error rates on the assumption that there are no errors?"
++ I do not assume that there are no errors. On the contrary, I calculate from the known errors.
You said, "Black can draw from the initial position without the 50-moves rule, so this position cannot be reached from optimal play by both sides". Optimal play by both sides I would take to mean no errors.
In AlphaZero autoplay there are 2.1 errors in 100 games @ 1 min / move.
In ICCF WC there are 9 errors in 136 games.
"Why don't you stop wriggling and post your calculations?"
++ Unlike others I have posted several calculations:
- Top down estimation of the number of relevant positions: legal - sensible - reachable - relevant
- Bottom up estimation of the number of relevant positions: upper bound, lower bound, estimate
- Calculation of width from AlphaZero autoplay.
- Calculation of depth from ICCF WC.
- Calculation of game-theoretic value, error / game from ICCF WC.
"proposal to solve chess in five years"
++ The solvability in 5 years results from the calculated 10^17 relevant positions.
Just irrelevant crap so I shrunk it. If you post the calculations I requested we don't need to discuss it.
I suggested you stop wriggling and post the requested calculations, instead of which you've wriggled for another nine inches and not posted any calculations. I reiterate my suggestion.
You might also like to state whether the calculations relate to basic rules errors or competition rules errors since you ignored my question in your response.
@6042
"Somebody posted where? I must have missed that."
++ Many posts higher here. The engine of the paper is so much slower that the top engine.
"Do you expect SF15 NPS to be the same as AZ NPS? "
++ Thin nodes (SF) are better than thick nodes (AZ) to hit the 7-men endgame table base.
"The games I posted here..." ++ are not relevant.
"But you have previously talked about your calculations to determine the game theoretic value of the starting position and the expected error rates in SF15 which you say relate to the feasibility of your proposals." ++ Yes, both are relevant.
"if you post your calculations" ++ I have posted and reposted calculations several times.
"the games you base your calculations on are played by the vehicle you intend to use"
++ I have no 10^9 nodes / s cloud engine at my disposal.
"you have the exact values for the time used" ++ It can be extrapolated.
"you try them out on my games" ++ I have posted above 2 of your irrelevant games and pointed out you have a problem with your Stockfish version.
"Would the anomalies include KNN vs KP" ++ Yes, because of KNN vs. K
"KRBN vs KQR" ++ No
"KRPP vs KRP" ++ No
"try them on my games here" ++ I have posted above on some of your games and pointed out you have a problem with your Stockfish version.
"++ Rook endings will occur most and are most relevant to weakly solving chess.
I ask again; how is that relevant to your calculation?"
++ Because KRPP vs. KRP draws turn up frequently in weakly solving Chess.
"you're considering games with the 50 move rule in effect so it's a draw."
++ It is a position that does not show up in solving Chess.
Most of the ICCF WC draws >99% sure to be perfect games do not even reach 50 moves.
In none of the ICCF WC games is the 50-moves rule triggered.
7-men table base wins can be claimed if they exceed 50 moves without pawn move or capture, but such claims do not happen.
"The 50 move rule was triggered in some of the games I posted."
++ That proves those games are not relevant to weakly solving Chess.
"In ICCF games the players preder to agree a draw or play a triple repetition because they get to the pub quicker." ++ You have no clue. They play for years on a game.
This for example is the last finished game: ends with a perpetual check i.e. 3-fold repetition https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164320
"Totally irrelevant to your calculations." ++ Totally relevant as example of perfect play.
"I don't propose a drawn KRPP vs KRP position in particular." ++ I do.
"If your calculations work they should work irrespective of material or theoretical result."
++ No. We are talking about weakly solving Chess, thus about optimal play by both players. Positions that do not result from optimal play are not relevant: they do not show up.
"you try your calculations on each of the sets of games I posted"
++ I posted a couple of those above and pointed out you have a problem with your Stockfish version. On my desktop the top 1 move coincides with a table base exact move.
"not just the games from the drawn KRPP vs KRP position I posted."
++ You did not post any drawn KRPP vs. KRP: the one you posted is a win.
"Black can draw from the initial position without the 50-moves rule, so this position cannot be reached from optimal play by both sides" ++ Yes, that is right.
"Optimal play by both sides I would take to mean no errors." ++ Yes, that is right.
"whether the calculations relate to basic rules errors or competition rules errors"
++ Errors are errors. The 50-moves rule is ignored as it plays no role.
Oct 12, 2022
0
#4626
That's now about a foot and a half of wriggling altogether. I'll respond later.
@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.
Oct 12, 2022
0
#4628
tygxc wrote:
@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.
False. This has been discussed before, with an example from the 7-piece tablebase where the engine top choice is a tablebase blunder.
RemovedUsername333 wrote:
I love this.
You love what, your account being closed for fair play violations?
NervesofButter wrote:
btickler wrote:
RemovedUsername333 wrote:
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
Oct 12, 2022
0
#4631
btickler wrote:
RemovedUsername333 wrote:
I love this.
You love what, your account being closed for fair play violations?
Oldhead moment
RemovedUsername333 wrote:
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.
Oct 12, 2022
0
#4633
btickler wrote:
RemovedUsername333 wrote:
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.
RemovedUsername333 wrote:
btickler wrote:
RemovedUsername333 wrote:
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.
Oct 12, 2022
0
#4636
btickler wrote:
RemovedUsername333 wrote:
btickler wrote:
RemovedUsername333 wrote:
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
RemovedUsername333 wrote:
LMAO
Brian, take your meds
We'll see who's still around a year from now. Meanwhile, both your assumptions here are off.
Oct 12, 2022
0
#4638
tygxc wrote:
@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.
"The engine AZ in the paper was presumably run on a Google's TPUs. From where did you get the equivalence?" ++ In the previous discussion somebody posted the NPS of the engine of the paper. So I converted to the 10^9 NPS of the current top engines.
"I'm not talking about weakly solving chess" ++ I am, that is the topic of this thread.
"you haven't posted a sensible description" ++ Yes several times. Take ICCF WC draws.
Analyse 3 alternatives per white move until a table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition.
"calculations of game-theoretic result and error rates extracted from games"
++ The game theoretic result and the error rate are derived from ICCF WC draws. 136 games of which 9 decisive. It is impossible to fit a Poisson distribution with 127 / 136 probability of an odd number of errors / game, thus the game-theoretic value of Chess must be a draw.
Fitting a Poisson distribution with 9 / 126 probability of an odd number of errors / game is possible and leads to the error rate of 7 errors per 100 games.
"If they work they should work from all positions."
++ No, there are known anomalies like KNN vs. K, KB + wrong R-pawn vs. K
"How is any of that relevant to your calculation?"
++ Rook endings will occur most and are most relevant to weakly solving chess.
"one of the positions is a drawn KRPP vs. KRP position anyway."
++ No, see top right in your image: White is winning DTZ 101.
It is a draw only by the 50-moves rule. Black can draw from the initial position without the 50-moves rule, so this position cannot be reached from optimal play by both sides.
"as were the games on which you base your calculations of the error rates you claim as is"
++ In none of these games was the 50-moves rule triggered.
So it does not matter if it was in effect or not.
"the game you offer to solve with SF15 which is also designed to play with the 50 move rule"
++ The rule may be in effect, but does not trigger, i.e. it is the same as if it is not in effect.
"It's the validity of the calculation I'm asking you to check."
++ So what drawn KRPP vs. KRP position do you propose?
"How can you presume to "calculate" error rates on the assumption that there are no errors?"
++ I do not assume that there are no errors. On the contrary, I calculate from the known errors.
In AlphaZero autoplay there are 2.1 errors in 100 games @ 1 min / move.
In ICCF WC there are 9 errors in 136 games.
"Why don't you stop wriggling and post your calculations?"
++ Unlike others I have posted several calculations:
"proposal to solve chess in five years"
++ The solvability in 5 years results from the calculated 10^17 relevant positions.