@6804
"you are just making up stats"
++ No, I fitted a Poisson distribution of the errors / game to the results of the ICCF WC Finals.
"You would need a perfect chess playing chess engine to check the game."
++ No, I do not, I use statistics to conclude that the ICCF WC Finals draws are > 99% certain to be perfect games with 0 errors.
"Stockfish the strongest chess playing chess engine we have.
Is not designed to play perfect chess as a type B Shannon chess engine."
++ It is not designed to do so, but can be used to do so given sufficient time.
If it would calculate 10^44 positions, then it would strongly solve chess, i.e. a 32-men table base, but that would take too much time and storage.
If it calculates 10^17 relevant positions, then it weakly solves chess. That can be done in 5 years.
"Even given infinite time on the world fastest computer." ++ Infinite time solves a finite game.
"Stockfish would not, and could not play perfect chess."
++ That is not necessary. It is enough that the table base optimal move is among the w top moves (e.g. w = 4) of the engine with less than 1 error in 10^17 positions.
"looking deeper then any human chess player"
++ Calculating until the 7-men endgame table base is the deepest that can be looked.
"human players can outthink stockfish"
++ Yes, in ICCF humans + engines play stronger than Stockfish alone.
@6801
"The trick is ignoring most of the lines"
++ Schaeffer weakly solved Checkers with only 19 of the 300 tournament openings.
200 were irrelevant because of transpositions. 81 were pruned.
If he was allowed to prune, then weakly solving Chess may and should prune as well.