Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
So far, (since I have joined this conversation) the predictions for the time required to “solve” chess have been: 1000 years, 31 nonillion years, billions of years, and 500,000 years…
@6832
"predictions for the time required to “solve” chess have been: 1000 years, ..."
++ That all relates to strongly solving Chess: a 32-men table base with all 10^44 legal positions.
Weakly solving chess just like Schaeffer weakly solved Checkers takes 5 years.
hrarray wrote:
So far, (since I have joined this conversation) the predictions for the time required to “solve” chess have been: 1000 years, 31 nonillion years, billions of years, and 500,000 years…
I've said a few times it will be in about 200 years. Not every possible position kind of solved, but the beyond a reasonable doubt kind of solved. Right now, because we are still in the very early stages of computer infancy, we can only just throw random guesses out. We aren't even close to any educated guesses.
@6834
"I've said a few times it will be in about 200 years" ++ Sveshnikov said, I calculated 5 years.
"beyond a reasonable doubt kind of solved" ++ Weakly solved like Checkers.
"we can only just throw random guesses out" ++ We can calculate.
"We aren't even close to any educated guesses." ++ Some guess, I calculate.
Now I get what you get by arguments..
So many useful things 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Ego satisfaction
Time wasting
Energy wasting
Beating someone continuously then gets beaten up indirectly very badly(in terms of argument)
Enjoying the aggressive atmosphere by blabbering trash hearing trash and seeing trash
Just BE QUIET PLEASE chess forums are for discussion.. 7000+ posts OMG.. see in any argument both the sides have their points but just be QUIET pls
@6836
"You said 5 years" ++ Yes, after Sveshnikov said so.
"you said many things that are false" ++ No.
"It is magical how you know the exact number of legal chess positions"
++ No, Tromp has calculated that. https://github.com/tromp/ChessPositionRanking
"the length of a optimal chess game" ++ We know that too. In ICCF WC Finals games lasted between 13 and 119 moves, 42 moves average, with standard deviation 16.
"It is magical how you know what lines are meaningful, and what lines can be removed."
++ That is no magic, it is logic. Obvious errors can be removed, like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?
Also by pure logic 1 e4 and 1 d4 cannot be worse than 1 a4, so 1 a4 can be removed.
1 Nh3 cannot be better than 1 Nf3, so 1 Nh3 can be removed.
"you claim Stockfish can play perfect chess"
++ Not my claim. I claim at 17 s/move on a billion nodes/s engine the table base exact move is among the top 4 engine moves with 1 error in 10^20 positions.
"a method of making a 32 man tablebase of only 10^17 positions"
++ Not my claim. A 32-men table base of 10^44 positions is beyond current capability.
However, based on 10^17 relevant positions perfect play is possible: black has one path to the 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition whatever white does.
"Meaning never losing a game from the starting position."
++ Schaeffer has done the same for Checkers, with only 10^14 relevant positions of the 10^20 legal positions and by analysing only 19 of the 300 tournament openings.
"you are the only one on the planet that possesses such knowledge" ++ Sveshnikov was first.
"We would already have a 32 man tablebase of only 10^17 positions" ++ That is impossible.
"they continue to work on the current tablebase method of using retrograde analysis and looking at every position" ++ An 8-men endgame table base is work in progress.
The idea of weakly solving chess is not to create a 32-men table base, i.e. strongly solving chess, but to calculate from the initial position towards the 7-men endgame table base.
"demonstrate the perfect play of Stockfish"
++ Stockfish does not play perfect chess. It approaches it if given more time/move.
Dec 22, 2022
0
#5167
tygxc wrote:
...
"you said many things that are false" ++ No.
...
many+1
(I hope your nose doesn't get longer each time; it could become totally debilitating.)
tygxc wrote:
@6748
"Solving chess means finding an optimal strategy for the game of chess, that is, one by which one of the players (White or Black) can always force a victory, or either can force a draw (see solved game) - Wikipedia"
++ Wikipedia is not the authority. The authority on this is Prof. van den Herik.
"ultra-weakly solved means that the game-theoretic value of the initial position has been determined,
weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition, and
strongly solved is being used for a game for which such a strategy has been determined for all legal positions."
"The only way to do that is to go through the entire position tree"
++ No, you can ultra-weakly solve Chess without going through any tree at all.
To weakly solve Chess you only have to go through all 10^18 relevant positions.
To strongly solve Chess you have to visit all 10^44 legal positions.
"you don't know if black's position is a starting loss" ++ We do know Chess is a draw.
"you literally don't know if the starting position is a win loss or draw of white" ++ It is a draw.
"what I am talking about is literally solving chess"
++ Ultra-weakly solving Chess merits no further discussion: we know it is a draw.
Strongly solving chess merits no further discussion: 10^44 legal positions is too much.
Weakly solving chess is interesting and the 10^18 relevant positions can be done in 5 years.
"Strongly solving chess, but if you think about its the same case"
++ 10^18 relevant positions is not the same as 10^44 legal positions.
@6775
Can I just revive your comment to say your words right here
""The only way to do that is to go through the entire position tree"
++ No, you can ultra-weakly solve Chess without going through any tree at all.
To weakly solve Chess you only have to go through all 10^18 relevant positions.
To strongly solve Chess you have to visit all 10^44 legal positions."
actually show you have a weak understanding of whats going on. Going through positions is going down a tree path 
, i actually wish there was a facepalm emoji.
if youre not open to to being wrong its like talking to a brick wall, I do not claim to know everything hell look at my mf elo, but as soon as you said "ICF players play better than Stockfish" there is just no hope
tygxc wrote:
@6834
"I've said a few times it will be in about 200 years" ++ Sveshnikov said, I calculated 5 years.
"beyond a reasonable doubt kind of solved" ++ Weakly solved like Checkers.
"we can only just throw random guesses out" ++ We can calculate.
"We aren't even close to any educated guesses." ++ Some guess, I calculate.
Well you are going to have to start calculating a LOT better. Because right now you are just randomly guessing. Sort of like throwing darts at a dartboard. Blindfolded. With your back turned, over your shoulder. Using only one finger.
Optimissed wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@6834
"I've said a few times it will be in about 200 years" ++ Sveshnikov said, I calculated 5 years.
"beyond a reasonable doubt kind of solved" ++ Weakly solved like Checkers.
"we can only just throw random guesses out" ++ We can calculate.
"We aren't even close to any educated guesses." ++ Some guess, I calculate.
Well you are going to have to start calculating a LOT better. Because right now you are just randomly guessing. Sort of like throwing darts at a dartboard. Blindfolded. With your back turned, over your shoulder. Using only one finger.
No, come on and be fair. How can you throw a dart using only one finger?
I think it may be possible. You'd have to balance one end on your finger and flick. mmm OK.
If it was in a pub, after a couple pints, and enough encouragement, it goes from possible to probable.
Dec 22, 2022
0
#5171
avramtparra wrote:
tygxc wrote:
...
if youre not open to to being wrong its like talking to a brick wall, ...
Not really. Most brick walls have enough intelligence to keep their mouth shut when they've no idea what they're talking about.
@6841
"ICF players play better than Stockfish"
++ That is true, because ICCF players use Stockfish and other engines.
If you believe Stockfish plays better than ICCF players, then enter an ICCF tournament and play the moves Stockfish indicates. You will lose a lot. Those ICCF grandmasters became ICCF grandmasters because they play much better than John Doe + Stockfish.
@6842
"Well you are going to have to start calculating a LOT better."
++ I am the only one how calculates here,
and the only one who presents facts and figures and backs it up with references.
All others guess.
It is like 'I do not know what a square root, or a Poisson distribution is,
so it must be wrong, so I guess a billion years'
Or 'I do not want Chess to be solved, so it cannot be solved, so I guess a billion years.'
Or 'I am to lazy to read, or to stupid to understand, so it must be wrong,
so I guess a billion years.'
Dec 23, 2022
0
#5174
Optimissed wrote:
You're actually a menace to others who have come here to learn.
I feel so very menaced by tygxc. Yet I still like him. I must be some kind of codependent.
@6855
"No one knows the exact number of legal positions in chess. "
++ We do know that.
Tromp counted exactly
8726713169886222032347729969256422370854716254 positions.
Then he randomly sampled 1,000,000 of these and he found 56,011 of these legal.
Thus he arrived at (4.82 +- 0.03) * 10^44 legal positions.
@6856
"A score of 0.00 means they played as well or better then todays Stockfish."
++ No, that is not true. Centipawns mean nothing, only errors are meaningful.
"And they did not have access to the Stockfish of today." ++ They do update while they play.
"My guess is all the best ICCF Grandmasters in the World Championship will play worse then just todays Stockfish." ++ You guess wrong.
Just play in an ICCF tournament, play Stockfish moves, and see how much you lose.
"And I will be using only 6 seconds a move"
++ you can never match 5 days / move with only 6 s / move.
"I have 136 games to analyze."
++ We know the outcome from statistics.
The 17 decisive games have 1 error, usually the last move.
The 119 draws are > 99% sure to be perfect games with 0 errors.
There is < 1% possibility that a game contains 2 errors that undo each other.
Even if chess is solved by a computer, it will be meaningless because 1) computer chess engines can already consistently defeat the best grandmasters, and 2) no human can learn "solved chess". A chess game between two humans involved unknown variable like personal preferences, level of memorization, what openings each player has studied the most, etc.
@6861
"talked to a ICCF Grandmaster Uri Blass" ++ What exactly did he say?
"ICCF Grandmaster do not play better then the chess computers they are using"
++ ICCF GM + engines > engine > ICCF GM
Your 0.01 figures only confirm: the drawn games are perfect games with optimal play from both sides and the decisive games contain 1 error.