Incidentally, polation is travelling between poles and the poles don't refer to the citizens of an interesting and highly respectable country but to points on a graph. You can also interpolate but extrapolation means going outside hitherto established boundaries, so it's bound to be less sure, since in lands we haven't travelled before, there might be witches and ghosts. Even poltergeists.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
I think that extrapolation could be a scientific proof in many cases but not, of course, a deductive or theoretical proof. For instance, the properties of elements on the periodic table were predicted by extrapolation from elements with known properties, before they were discovered. The results were largely very accurate. In a situation where extrapolation has never been known to fail it can be accepted as a scientific proof if no other is available but that, of course, isn't deductive but inductive so it cannot be regarded as being definite.
btickler wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
You keep saying "you see". I noticed it twice at the beginning of paragraphs. I also noticed that you don't really care. I haven't read the rest because it's so predictable. No point ... you aren't interesting. I gave my age specifically to see what you would do with it and sure enough, back came "old and bitter". A stereotype and it wouldn't be a very kind one if it were true. But I have a beautiful wife who looks 20 years younger than she is AND she's younger than me by 8 years, most things I need, my son is successful and a good person and I'm happy. I keep fit, do long walks, keep busy, have lots of interests. What do you do? Find people to try to upset. That's about what you seem to enjoy. I don't need to prove anything to you. Ability speaks for itself but only for people who know the language.
Lol. No, I didn't say a word about your age, or call you bitter, until after seeing you wax eloquent for years on end. I don't judge you or your life...*until* you judge others around you. Then I hold up the mirror. That's the ultimate issue. The things I know about you, by the way, are all things you have used in the past in attempts to show yourself as "better than" or to try and support dubious claims about others. Hoist with your own petard.
Speaking of ability, if you had the ability to exist here without having to put down everyone around you when you don't get your way, then the forums would be better off, and you would be far better off. Your life would be measurably better if you never talked about IQ or basically anything that implies nobody on whatever thread you happen to be infecting can hold a candle to you intellectually.
...and someone with an actual 160 IQ would have theoretically figured this out by the age of 70 , if IQ actually meant what you'd like it to mean.
I gave 170, old fruit; not 160. The actual figure was 169 obtained four or five times from some Eysenck intelligence tests I took when I was recovering from infectious hepatitis in about 1977. I have stuck to 170 as a conservative estimate and am sure I could have scored higher, if I hadn't been recovering from a very serious disease, where I was in a coma for at least two days. Indeed, I looked at the results and wondered with embarrassment how I could have made such elementary mistakes. But then, to achieve such a score, you have to complete the tests extremely fast. Indeed, it's the speed you do them rather than getting the odd one wrong. And of course, the mistakes I made wouldn't have been elementary ones to you. You would have scored about 130 to 135, which is about your intelligence level. 160 would put me on about a level with my wife. Mensa measured her as either 156 or 158 in the early 1980s, before I met her. She can't remember if it was 156 or 158. I would guess 156. She is pretty bright though, all the same.
These days I never bother to read your entire posts. I just alight on some egotistic claim or other. I'm pretty sure your posts would be interminably repetitive and dull if they were read in their entirety. Indeed, this kind of thing is also off-topic, although I think that MAR and I have established that Elroch is wrong about Game Theory and Solving Chess.
Sep 27, 2022
0
#5285
btickler wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Yes and no. What are the abstract rules? The complexity of solving one set of abstract rules may be very different from another, so it seems to me that question needs to be addressed before commenting on OP's question.
It could be that an abstract game based on basic rules will eventually be solved by human ingenuity while an abstract game based on competition rules proves too difficult.
And if you plan to use a GUI/Stockfish combination in solving, you do have an arbiter; it's the GUI. You also have a concrete set of rules.
Ermm, no. First, you can't use Stockfish in solving anyway, because it is incapable of evaluating perfect play.
The checkers solution used Chinook which was described as "almost perfect". That is critical to success if the starting position is a draw. By quickly finding a forced win in a position subtrees starting with the position can be discarded.
I agree SF is not "almost perfect" and I think I've made it clear that I don't believe a solution is viable using that route if the starting position turns out to be a draw or a long win.
That is why I said, "if you plan to use Stockfish ...". I included it because @tygxc is planning to do just that (although apparently to not solve rather than to solve from the meagre details he has leaked).
Second, a GUI, that is, the user interface, would certainly not be an arbiter of any kind .
On the contrary, if you "play an engine" using a GUI and the UCI interface, the GUI is both your opponent and the arbiter. The engine merely gives advice to the GUI.
The GUI enforces the rules, in which capacity it acts as arbiter, though its rules generally do not correspond with FIDE rules (e.g. you may usually move your mouse with more than one hand contrary to FIDE art.4.1).
In the following example I play Arena/SF15 with "check fifty move rule" set to "always" in Arena.
Notice that it announces a draw under the 50 move rule on move 50, before I have made 50 moves (SF started as Black).
It then allows me to make a move before terminating the game.
I didn't claim under the 50 move rule; why would I? Arena claimed for me because it is enforcing the 50 move rule claim. SF certainly didn't claim. It has no mechanism in the UCI protocol.
The GUI, Arena, claimed, acting as arbiter, not as player.
...
I love chess
KorvenDalas escribió:
I love chess
Me too
Sep 27, 2022
0
#5288
Optimissed wrote:
... MAR is finally taking on Elroch. ...
I wouldn't get yourself overexcited Optimissed.
I said only that your comment, "game theory cannot apply to the solving of chess" was correct in my opinion, based on "chess" meaning one of the games described in the FIDE handbook, which are not zero sum games. I didn't say that any of your preceding arguments on the point had any merit, they're just up to your normal standard.
My comment was intended more as a criticism of FIDE's formulation of the rules than a serious comment on game theory. Game theory obviously applies with suitable modifications of FIDE's formulation.
In fact, I was probably wrong to say that "chess" means, to most people, the games described in the FIDE handbook. Most people, I believe, would say, for instance, that it is not allowed in chess for White to begin the game by moving a black piece.
Sep 27, 2022
0
#5289
tygxc wrote:
@5403
"You can use whatever method you like. Tea leaves, Tarot cards, Astrology, whatever."
++ Ramanujan said the Goddess Namagiri Thayar revealed him mathematical theorems.
"extrapolation does not provide certainty" ++ It does not need to be exact.
1 error in 10^20 positions or 10^19 or 10^21 does not matter. Approximate is enough.
"NEVER provides proof"
++ Proof is evidence that compels the mind to accept a fact or truth.
Every con man would love your definition.
No. Proof is something that could (in principle or even in practice) be verified by a computer. Anything weaker is vulnerable to being wrong.
For example, this has actually been done for the 4 Colour Theorem and for the solution of checkers (the former using a general proof assistant, the latter an exhaustive verification of explicit strategies). You are hawking a second-rate alternative.
@5401
"love your definition." ++ Not my definition: that of Webster
"Proof is something that could (in principle or even in practice) be verified by a computer."
++ No. Most mathematical proofs were not and could not be verified by a computer.
All proofs before 1976 would be disqualified by your logic.
"vulnerable to being wrong" ++ All proofs are vulnerable to being wrong.
There have been published several proofs of the Riemann Hypothesis.
'We cannot prove it for it might be wrong' is a non-argument.
"this has actually been done for the 4 Colour Theorem" ++ It was partly wrong at the start.
"You are hawking a second-rate alternative."
++ No, I prefer a smart way that works over a stupid way that does not work.
For the smart way the human assistants are vital.
GM Sveshnikov named the assistants first and the computers second.
They set up the calculation, as was also done for the solution of Losing Chess.
They apply a few rules as Allis did for Connect Four.
They agree on a draw when neither side can win or resign when a loss is inevitable,
just like they do in ICCF games.
It is stupid to demand playing on until checkmate, or 3-fold repetition.
We need the 3 engines 24/7 during 5 years to work on the 10^17 relevant positions.
If you dilute each relevant position in a million irrelevant positions,
then you are bound for 5 million years.
Elroch wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@5403
"You can use whatever method you like. Tea leaves, Tarot cards, Astrology, whatever."
++ Ramanujan said the Goddess Namagiri Thayar revealed him mathematical theorems.
"extrapolation does not provide certainty" ++ It does not need to be exact.
1 error in 10^20 positions or 10^19 or 10^21 does not matter. Approximate is enough.
"NEVER provides proof"
++ Proof is evidence that compels the mind to accept a fact or truth.
Every con man would love your definition.
No. Proof is something that could (in principle or even in practice) be verified by a computer. Anything weaker is vulnerable to being wrong.
This shows where others think you're going wrong. Proof is evidence which is true, accurate and verifiable, and which leads by deduction to an inescapable conclusion, which could be verified by a God. Otherwise, tygxc's definition is fine. The God is unnecessary and Gods are stronger than computers.
For example, this has actually been done for the 4 Colour Theorem and for the solution of checkers (the former using a general proof assistant, the latter an exhaustive verification of explicit strategies). You are hawking a second-rate alternative.
Don't say that about Hawking.
Optimissed wrote:
I gave 170, old fruit; not 160. The actual figure was 169 obtained four or five times from some Eysenck intelligence tests I took when I was recovering from infectious hepatitis in about 1977. I have stuck to 170 as a conservative estimate and am sure I could have scored higher, if I hadn't been recovering from a very serious disease, where I was in a coma for at least two days. Indeed, I looked at the results and wondered with embarrassment how I could have made such elementary mistakes. But then, to achieve such a score, you have to complete the tests extremely fast. Indeed, it's the speed you do them rather than getting the odd one wrong. And of course, the mistakes I made wouldn't have been elementary ones to you. You would have scored about 130 to 135, which is about your intelligence level. 160 would put me on about a level with my wife. Mensa measured her as either 156 or 158 in the early 1980s, before I met her. She can't remember if it was 156 or 158. I would guess 156. She is pretty bright though, all the same.
These days I never bother to read your entire posts. I just alight on some egotistic claim or other. I'm pretty sure your posts would be interminably repetitive and dull if they were read in their entirety. Indeed, this kind of thing is also off-topic, although I think that MAR and I have established that Elroch is wrong about Game Theory and Solving Chess.
Lol. So 156 or 158 and you have decided it's 156. How very, very you to (a) assume the lower for your poor wife, and (b) make a judgment about someone's IQ at a level of detail you are wholly unqualified to assess.
You must be a joy to live with 
. Luckily for you, your wife apparently shares your love of all things IQ, which must make her job harder since the measurement has been worthless for so long now and will be frowned upon among well-read colleagues.
You took the test many times (more than many, in a relative sense compared with most people), no doubt because not reaching 170 was so frustrating for you...which invalidates the results.
^^ March of the trolls. Wasn't there some music written about you or maybe I'm getting it mixed up with the March of the Sugarplum Fairy?
Basically I'm pretty good at judging people's IQs. After all, I have a higher one than anyone I'm likely to come into contact with, which even includes you. I would believe about 150 for her but not about 160 necessarily. I even doubt my son @caproni could achieve much over 150 and he was reckoned to be one of the two really brilliant mathematicians at St Andrews University. I hope he'll forgive me if I'm wrong but maths is more specialised and IQ is general problem solving. I took the test many times because I was doing something you wouldn't understand. I even explained it once to you about 8 or 10 years ago and you claim to have a good memory. You evidently don't. Anyway, I was attempting to validate the tests in a particular way, which there's no need to go into. I don't know why you're commenting because basically you aren't clever enough to comment. My wife isn't the faintest bit interested in IQ, which is why she couldn't remember hers. I am interested in IQ. I don't think @caproni is at all. He's interested in success. So far as living with people goes, do you actually live with anyone? I doubt it very much. Extremely much, in fact, because you're projecting again.
In any case, you can't read, can you, since I did mention I achieved the figure169 four or five times but never over. That frustrated me slightly, because my father had been measured by the Army at 171 in the one and only test he took and I was sure I should score better than him 
. I still have the list of scores I got somewhere. As I say, I was validating the tests themselves, to see if there was any consistency if certain variables changed. But you wouldn't understand that.
Now troll off.
NervesofButter wrote:
Just realistic, as a matter of fact.
Sep 27, 2022
0
#5297
btickler wrote:
...
...and someone with an actual 160 IQ would have theoretically figured this out by the age of 70 , if IQ actually meant what you'd like it to mean.
Possibly he's got the two figures mixed up.
That would seem likely because he can't read the topics of the threads he posts in. He thinks
"Chess will never be solved, here's why" says
"Chess will never be solved, here's why and what is Optimissed's IQ"
and "Chess Will Never Be 100% Analyzed. Why?" says
"Chess Will Never Be 100% Analyzed. Why? and what is Optimissed's IQ"
and "True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides" says
"True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides and what is Optimissed's IQ"
and ...
Good Lord, are you also mad as well as not being able to punctuate? Watch this and it'll make you feel better. Can't have you feeling sorry for .... yourself? You're still blocked though, you great lummox.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwimkZqG2rX6AhVFilwKHeUsD7UQtwJ6BAgOEAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DT1vVBBh4fC0&usg=AOvVaw3zmgsiPyt9NvQnc9qXS9em
I must say, that takes some nerve, Nerves of Butter. People have been calling you a troll now for years and I always assumed it was unintentional. But you haven't been playing any part in this thread so to stand up like that, as a proud troll and say "I am a troll", deserves admiration.
To be quite candid, I think you take inspiration from quite the wrong type of person. Maybe you're trying to emulate a known troll. This is going to be not so great for your reputation ... you should probably try to do your own thing instead of copying others who, between you and me, may not have all their bats at home in their belfry either. But anyhow, I wish you all the best.
Well done.
I should have thought that all statistical inference is a type of extrapolation, since it really just means assuming that the same kind of things will continue to happen. So you extra-polate. I mean, if you assumed that things that didn't happen would happen in the future. you might be on a loser.