Er, no - that was me. I just made it ridiculous enough to pass for @tygxc.
He's posted the same thing about 27 times regarding the 50 move rule.
Clearly my parody was too close to its target.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Oct 15, 2022
0
#4723
MARattigan wrote:
Er, no - that was me. I just made it ridiculous enough to pass for @tygxc.
He's posted the same thing about 27 times regarding the 50 move rule.
Clearly my parody was too close to its target.
You got it just right. Seemed (and looked in your post) just like a quote from him.
Guys stop with this forum already
Oct 15, 2022
0
#4725
tygxc wrote:
@6200
"a game of chess can be won without queening a pawn"
++ Yes, among weaker players
Are you including all human players, or are you completely unaware of all games that have been won by a successful (often sacrificial) attack on the king?
Alekhine played a checkmate on the board against Bogoljubov after a brilliant kingside attack as black in the 1929 world championship match.
Cobra2721 wrote:
Guys stop with this forum already
This may come as a surprise, but you are under no obligation to read every post on the site. I absolve you of your obligation to open this thread ever again...go in peace.
btickler wrote:
Cobra2721 wrote:
Guys stop with this forum already
This may come as a surprise, but you are under no obligation to read every post on the site. I absolve you of your obligation to open this thread ever again...go in peace.
... dont be cleve4 woth me
Optimissed wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Logically, a position is the entire initial chess position divided by a small factor to account for number of moves made. It's still a vast number of operations. Logically, you can't calculate any one position without "solving" most of chess.
tygxc doesn't even understand that and unfortunately, others haven't been clear enough, so that onlookers like Mike_Kalish, who says he tries to follow without much understanding, don't even know who's "winning".
It's been won about 10^17 times: hence Peruvian jungles.
It does seem that anyone not understanding this is pretty stupid.
No one who knows me has ever accused me of being stupid...... or condescending.
Oct 15, 2022
0
#4729
GQV1N wrote:
Even if a computer would solve chess, which I doubt, because the possible "reasobable" positions is estimated to be around 10^120 or something, I think that the branching nature of chess after every move would make it humanly impossible to memorize all the move sequences that this computer would provide us. I mean if we could do it, wouldn't we have already used stockfish for this considering it's stronger than any human anyway? We could however, maybe deduce possible themes and strategies in every perfect game the engine provides, which I think could actually be beneficial to human chess
Yes, that's the gist of it. Arguments about how to define "perfect game", what is a "reasonable position", whether or not a computer can solve chess, and how much time and effort will be involved are intricate questions that posters here have been going in circles discussing fill most of this forum. Insults and side topics make it even more interesting.
Oct 15, 2022
0
#4730
Cobra2721 wrote:
...
... dont be cleve4 woth me
Could be difficult. He might manage it on his own.
Oct 15, 2022
0
#4731
GQV1N wrote:
mikekalish wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Logically, a position is the entire initial chess position divided by a small factor to account for number of moves made. It's still a vast number of operations. Logically, you can't calculate any one position without "solving" most of chess.
tygxc doesn't even understand that and unfortunately, others haven't been clear enough, so that onlookers like Mike_Kalish, who says he tries to follow without much understanding, don't even know who's "winning".
It's been won about 10^17 times: hence Peruvian jungles.
It does seem that anyone not understanding this is pretty stupid.
So do you believe, as your statements seems to indicate, that anyone who doesn't understand this debate is stupid?
The visible universe, from Earth out to the furthest known galaxies, only contains about 10^78 elementary particles...
... that's around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 particles...
... which is far too few to keep track of the moves of all possible chess games. Even if only a single electron were to be used to record each move (somehow?) it would still require at least 10^42 times more storage than that to hold the information.
I think you might need to count them again, but apart from that, the number of arrangements and states of those particles is probably more germane.
Oct 15, 2022
0
#4732
GQV1N wrote:
The visible universe, from Earth out to the furthest known galaxies, only contains about 10^78 elementary particles...
... that's around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 particles...
... which is far too few to keep track of the moves of all possible chess games. Even if only a single electron were to be used to record each move (somehow?) it would still require at least 10^42 times more storage than that to hold the information.
Of course physicists posit that the "visible universe" accounts for only 15% of actual matter, making much more space for data storage theoretically available. This still makes the process highly impractical, which is why some here think that the solution awaits a quantum leap in data analysis.
Oct 15, 2022
0
#4733
Optimissed wrote:
I know. It's a fairly new mobile phone but I have a proper digital camera somewhere. My previous phone was better than this one.
Can't be that bad. More likely DTs.
Optimissed wrote:
As usual, it's rotated by 90 degrees. I'll post a pic of my wife I just took, to see if she's standing on her head. I've no idea why they don't sort out all the glitches here. Maybe they don't WANT it to work properly.
I am confident that someone of your abilities will have this sorted in no time. Until then, you can rotate the photos in MS Paint before you upload them.
Oct 15, 2022
0
#4735
GQV1N wrote:
mikekalish wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Logically, a position is the entire initial chess position divided by a small factor to account for number of moves made. It's still a vast number of operations. Logically, you can't calculate any one position without "solving" most of chess.
tygxc doesn't even understand that and unfortunately, others haven't been clear enough, so that onlookers like Mike_Kalish, who says he tries to follow without much understanding, don't even know who's "winning".
It's been won about 10^17 times: hence Peruvian jungles.
It does seem that anyone not understanding this is pretty stupid.
So do you believe, as your statements seems to indicate, that anyone who doesn't understand this debate is stupid?
The visible universe, from Earth out to the furthest known galaxies, only contains about 10^78 elementary particles...
... that's around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 particles...
... which is far too few to keep track of the moves of all possible chess games. Even if only a single electron were to be used to record each move (somehow?) it would still require at least 10^42 times more storage than that to hold the information.
Well, a basic chess tablebase has about 10^44 positions with an average of 40 moves. There is plenty of room in the Universe to store it (with an absurd amount of effort beyond the entire capabilities of all human civilisation).
It might be almost useless though because of the size (hence slowness). This tablebase describes the infinite number of possible basic chess games as all paths through the positions via the listed legal moves for each position, and tells you the optimal value of each position and each move at every stage of such a path.
Any species that reached the level of technological capability to construct such a tablebase would have much more worthwhile things to do with vast resources.
Oct 15, 2022
0
#4736
My Moto G60 has 3 lenses on the back and one on the front. I presume this used the one that has 108 megapixels, which is just a silly number and not very useful in this light.
Oct 15, 2022
0
#4738
Optimissed wrote:
OK I'll experiment. This is me a year ago when I wasn't shaving. If it isn't the right way up, I'll rotate it.
Ustinov on diet?
tygxc wrote:
++ The checkmate rule plays no role in weakly solving chess.
In truth, checkmate being the objective of the game, it plays a central and crucial role in weakly solving chess. Even if chess is a draw, avoiding getting checkmated is the fundamental objective of both players. This (obviously) depends on the checkmate rule.
The results in a tablebase are entirely the consequence of what forced checkmates exist. A draw is the lack of existence of a forced checkmate (respecting whatever ruleset is in operation). This determines all the positions that need to be avoided by a player trying to achieve a draw.