@6114
Yes, Kasparov said: "Never shall I be beaten by a machine!" in an interview in 1989.
https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/computers.html
"Chess will never be solved" falls into the same category:
people not wanting something to happen and therefore stating it cannot be done.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Oct 14, 2022
0
#4663
tygxc wrote:
@6106
"There are multiple tablebases and multiple correct moves for each" ++ Yes, and yes, sometimes
"true for a particular tablebase but not necessarily for different tablebases"
++ You do not understand table bases.
The game states and the correct moves are the same in all table bases.
Not under competition rules.
Here's Nalimov and Syzygy in the KNNKP position I posted after Black's first move, but with ply count set to 0.
Nalimov shows 12 winning moves.
Syzygy shows 1 winning move.
Here's a related ply count 0 position.
Nalimov shows a win.
Syzygy shows a draw.
"SF15 is rated higher than SF14."
++ That may well be, but on my desktop with less time the engine move coincides with the/a table base correct move and on your computer it does not, so you have a problem.
No. You still have a comprehension problem.
SF's error rates don't necessarily improve with more think time. They can deteriorate.
Get off your arse and generate your own set of games with the same think times if you don't believe me.
"Your calculations take the results of multiple games to determine error rates."
++ Yes: 1469 ICCF WC games and 1000 AlphaZero games.
Conveniently chosen so that you can't tell how many mistakes were made nor how the think times compare with SF at different think times, not even the same ruleset and mostly terminated by agreement or the TCEC draw rule.
"Some of mine had mistakes" ++ So you have a problem with your Stockfish configuration.
No I don't. I have a problem with the mental capacity of the person I'm talking to.
"preferably first just get on with posting your calculations based on the games I've already run."
++ Preferably get on with relevant positions like the 2 I posted.
Then generate a complete set of games. I've spent enough time on it. You're the one who claims your calculation works. Try doing something to test it.
The positions you posted are neither more nor less relevant to verifying the correctness of your method than the ones I already posted.
You only need one counter-example to show it doesn't work. I've generated four sets of games for you here. See if you can find a counter-example among those. Stop prevaricating - post your calculations for those games.
@6116
"Nalimov shows 12 winning moves. Syzygy shows 1 winning move."
++ That does not matter. 1 winning move is enough. A table base does not even have to show winning moves, DTZ or DTM: just the information if the position is a draw or not is enough,
as the rest can be deduced from looking at the legally reachable positions.
"Syzygy shows a draw." ++ No, Syzygy shows a win that exceeds 50 moves without capture or pawn move, that is a win just the same. The 50-moves rule plays no role in weakly solving Chess. Black can achieve the game-theoretic value of the draw without invoking the 50-moves rule.
"SF's error rates don't necessarily improve with more think time. They can deteriorate."
++ I do not believe that. If you believe that, then reduce your time to eliminate your error.
"you can't tell how many mistakes were made" ++ I can tell by statistics.
"how the think times compare with SF at different think times"
++ Derived from the AlphaZero paper
"not even the same ruleset" ++ A more decisive rule set: table base win claims that exceed 50 moves without pawn move or capture are allowed, but such claims do not happen.
"mostly terminated by agreement" ++ Because neither side can win. Likewise none of the decisive games ended in checkmate and none in a 7-men endgame table base win claim,
neither exceeding 50 moves without pawn move or capture or not.
"preferably first just get on with posting your calculations based on the games I've already run."
++ Preferably get on with relevant positions like the 2 I posted.
"Then generate a complete set of games." ++ OK, I will generate some more games.
"The positions you posted are neither more nor less relevant to verifying the correctness of your method than the ones I already posted." ++ My positions are relevant, yours are not.
"You only need one counter-example to show it doesn't work." ++ A relevant one.
"post your calculations for those games." ++ I have shown why they are not relevant and I have shown for 2 that you make an error with your calculation.
Oct 14, 2022
0
#4665
tygxc wrote:
@6116
"Nalimov shows 12 winning moves. Syzygy shows 1 winning move."
++ That does not matter.
It does if you use Nalimov and pick one of the others, but you should have used Syzygy! You said it didn't matter which tablebase you used, right?
Oct 14, 2022
0
#4666
tygxc wrote:
@6114
Yes, Kasparov said: "Never shall I be beaten by a machine!" in an interview in 1989.
Like Sveshnikov, Kasparov is 100% reliable.
@6118
"you should have used Syzygy"
++ I used Syzygy, but it does not matter.
Syzygy is just more compact than Nalimov, so it fits on a hard disk.
The core information is the same: draw / win / loss.
@6119
"Like Sveshnikov, Kasparov is 100% reliable."
++ Kasparov was proven wrong and I have proven Sveshnikov right:
Chess can be weakly solved in 5 years.
Chess players are more reliable when they speak of Chess than when they speak of themselves.
Oct 14, 2022
0
#4670
tygxc wrote:
I have proven Sveshnikov right
It is great that you have solved chess. 
End of discussion, I suppose.
Oct 14, 2022
0
#4671
tygxc wrote:
@6118
"you should have used Syzygy"
++ I used Syzygy, but it does not matter.
Syzygy is just more compact than Nalimov, so it fits on a hard disk.
The core information is the same: draw / win / loss.
You've already proved you don't understand tablebases. There's no need to labour the point.
(I notice you're still chopping half of the sentences you respond to to distort the meaning.)
@6116
""Then generate a complete set of games.""
++ Here are 4 relevant KRPP vs. KRP draws.
In all of these the top 1 engine move was table base exact.
This sustains:
A table base exact move is among the top 4 moves of a 10^9 positions / s engine running for 17 s with 1 error in 10^20 positions.
This was extrapolated from the 10,000 + 1,000 AlphaZero games.
@6123
"It is great that you have solved chess"
++ I have not solved chess, I have shown that Chess can be weakly solved in 5 years.
I have shown in two ways that 10^17 positions are relevant to weakly solving Chess.
- top down starting from legal, sensible, reachable, relevant positions
- bottom up calculating an upper bound, a lower bound and an estimate.
3 cloud engines of 1 billion positions / s each reach 10^17 positions in 5 years.
10^9 positions/s/engine * 3 engines * 3600 s/h * 24 h/d * 365.25 d/a * 5 a = 4.7*10^17
Oct 14, 2022
0
#4674
tygxc wrote:
@6118
"you should have used Syzygy"
++ I used Syzygy, but it does not matter.
Syzygy is just more compact than Nalimov, so it fits on a hard disk.
The core information is the same: draw / win / loss.
Likewise, if you used Syzygy, you don't get results for a ruleset incompatible with it.
To be specific, a position can be a Nalimov win and a Syzygy draw (where the 50 move rule prevents a win).
@6129
"where the 50 move rule prevents a win"
++ The 50-moves rule plays no role in weakly solving chess.
A weak solution of Chess without the 50-moves rule is also a solution of Chess with the 50-moves rule. In none of the perfect games we have was the 50 moves rule invoked.
Oct 14, 2022
0
#4676
Also, engines are truly crappy at evaluating positions given 1 billionth of a second. (evaluating their legality alone in that time would be a challenge to specialised hardware like a 300 times faster version of Deep Blue 2's chips, and impossible with a state of the art general processor, never mind any sort of evaluation). You need to evaluate every single one of the positions reachable by a legal move in order to select your magic "four best moves".
Having spent your 40 billionths of a second to evaluate the 40 legal moves, you have not even a good idea of which is best. For that you need to evaluate them to a reasonable depth unless you want to be wrong very often.
@6131
"evaluating positions given 1 billionth of a second"
++ They evaluate 1 billion positions per second.
https://chessify.me/blog/nps-what-are-the-nodes-per-second-in-chess-engine-analysis
"You need to evaluate every single one of the positions reachable by a legal move in order to select your magic four best moves." ++ Yes, that takes 17 s.
"you need to evaluate them to a reasonable depth" ++ Yes: 17 s, that is 17 billion positions.
Oct 14, 2022
0
#4678
tygxc wrote:
@6131
"evaluating positions given 1 billionth of a second"
++ They evaluate 1 billion positions per second.
https://chessify.me/blog/nps-what-are-the-nodes-per-second-in-chess-engine-analysis
"You need to evaluate every single one of the positions reachable by a legal move in order to select your magic four best moves." ++ Yes, that takes 17 s.
That's 17 seconds per position seen by the opponent of a strategy.
Since half the (underestimated) 10^17 positions are seen by the opponent of a strategy, that is:
8.5 * 10^17 seconds, about 280 billion years.
Oct 14, 2022
0
#4679
tygxc wrote:
@6116
""Then generate a complete set of games.""
++ Here are 4 relevant KRPP vs. KRP draws.
Not what I'd call a complete set of games.
You don't say what think time was used. You've produced one game for each position - how do apply your calculation to determine the game theoretic value of each position from those?
In all of these the top 1 engine move was table base exact.
This sustains:
A table base exact move is among the top 4 moves of a 10^9 positions / s engine running for 17 s with 1 error in 10^20 positions.
This was extrapolated from the 10,000 + 1,000 AlphaZero games.
It doesn't contradict it.
You claim it's generally true, so you would need rather a lot of confirmatory examples to sustain the conjecture or even to lend it credibility.
On the other hand you need only one counterexample to discredit it, which I think you'll find among the games I spent so much time preparing for you (which are equally relevant to the correctness of your calculation).
You can settle the matter to your own and everyone else's satisfaction by applying your calculations to the examples I posted here.
I invite you (as you invited me here) to "Show it or shut it". (But this time the onus of proof is correctly placed.)
Kasparov once said "computer will never beat top chess human players"...