Chess will never be solved, here's why

@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.

@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 

@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.

If you repeat a lie three times it doesn't make it true.

Pointing out a non-existent problem with my version of Stockfish on spurious grounds is not, repeat not, posting your calculations for any of my positions.

"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" [Deleted text reinserted:  of your unspecified tablebase.] 
++ No, the top 1 engine move did coincide with the table base correct move. 

A tablebase correct move, not necessarily the top, according to your original post.

"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. 

I'm neither asserting nor denying that it's relevant to solving chess. That would depend on how you plan to do it. (No please not another cut and paste.)

I am asserting that games played from the position are relevant to checking if your calculations do what you claim they do.

Since your calculations don't refer to anything specific in the starting position they should work when applied to any position. All positions are relevant to checking the validity of your method of calculation.

And I did nothing wrong with my 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.

Yes, apologies. I've located the post.

"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.

If you want to check the validity of your calculations, they give error rates as a function of think time, so a range of times is useful. A think time of 2048 seconds is getting closer to the 17s on a 10^9 NPS that you've quoted. A single game with unspecified think time isn't much use.

(It sounds like you still haven't grasped what minimax pathology is btw.).

[Deleted text reinserted: Instead you continue to vacuously assert] "I had a problem with my Stockfish version." ++ Yes you did.

No I didn't. It's your brain that has a problem.

I get full coincidence of the top 1 engine move and in less time than you. So you have a problem.

If you try generating the games I posted with the same think times (almost certainly with either SF14 or SF15) you will find the same phenomenon.

Not my problem; your lack of understanding.

"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?

In your example I do; I haven't generated any games from the position myself.

I think you will also find a few such examples in the games I posted (when you get round to it, that is).

"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.

"all positions are relevant to checking the validity of your method of calculation" is correct. Why "++No" and talk about something different? Again you're using the disembodied "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.

Strongly disagree, but neither is relevant to verifying your calculations.

"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

Again no think time or mention of what is playing, so not very useful.

You appear to be saying that only positions and think times where you can demonstrate a good correlation between what your calculations predict and the actual results, or positions where the actual results are unknown, are relevant to verifying your calculations.

I reiterate; All positions are relevant to the verification.

... The table base correct move will always be among those 4, except in 1 case in 10^20 positions ...

@6099

"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.

Here you're contradicting your own statement.

You said

I previously posted calculations of two of your irrevelant positions. The engine top 1 move coincided with the top 1 engine move.

I gently pointed out

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.

Now I find you attributing your howler to me.

There are multiple tablebases and multiple correct moves for each, so you should say "a correct move" not "the correct move".

"A tablebase correct move, not necessarily the top" ++ It is either table base correct or not.

We already knew you don't understand tablebases. What you say is true for a particular tablebase but not necessarily for different tablebases.

Certainly it is generally not "the top or not" in different tablebases.

"That would depend on how you plan to do it." ++ I have explained.

"And I did nothing wrong with my version of Stockfish."
++ Your version makes mistakes and mine does not.

Not true. SF15 is rated higher than SF14. Your version of Stockfish is just too bone idle to play enough games to make mistakes.

"A think time of 2048 seconds is getting closer to the 17s on a 10^9 NPS that you've quoted."
++ Agree, but if my engine top 1 move is already table base correct I do not need more.

Your calculations take the results of multiple games to determine error rates. That's why I provided you with multiple games. You're not going to get very far with a single game with unknown think time if you're going to apply your calculations to it.

"I haven't generated any games from the position myself." ++ I did.

One as far as I know. Is that enough to talk about "games" plural?

[Deleted text reinserted:  You appear to be saying that]"only positions and think times where you can demonstrate a good correlation between what your calculations predict and the actual results, or positions where the actual results are unknown, are relevant to verifying your calculations."
++ I posted 2 of your irrelevant positions above and my top 1 engine move coincided with the table base correct move, while yours did not. You deny you have a problem.

Yes, I deny I have a problem.

You have a comprehension problem.

Some of mine had mistakes, but I think it's likely that some of those with a similar think time to whatever was your average think time did not. (I've not fully checked my games against the tablebases. You're supposed to be doing that.)

If you like you can run the same set of positions I posted with the same fixed think times and we can look at how closely the error rates match. But preferably first just get on with posting your calculations based on the games I've already run.

I posted 2 relevant positions games and again the top 1 engine move coincided with the table base correct move.

Good.

As I said your positions are relevant because all positions are relevant to verifying your calculations.

Now, after all that obfuscation, will you stop wriggling and post your calculations for the games here? Then the rest of us can discuss the topic.

As for habitually leaving out bits of your text to make it appear you've said something completely different, there's probably a phrase for that too.