Chess will never be solved, here's why

It means that someone aged 9 who has an IQ of 169, for argument's sake, is thought to have a similar cognitive ability to an average person aged 9x1.69 = 15.21 or 15 years 2 months. That would be about right for me aged 9 but I aged 10 I think I had a higher IQ than that. At a guess, maybe 180. But it declined shortly afterwards. I lost the mental clarity and it took years before it returned. It turns out that would be due to the masses of new neurons being developed around puberty, which can destroy existing connections, according to btickler's link from last week, which I believe and think was good but simplistically presented.

I'm trying to ignore you as best I can but you're definitely mentally ill. There isn't any doubt about it.

There's no reason to abandon the mental/chronological formula for children and young people. The standard deviation method mpaetz mentioned has to be used for those who are old enough that their ability is no longer increasing or isn't increasing at the same rate.

If responding to my every post is you ignoring me, I'm glad I'm not your friend .

Mental illness is not something I would take your judgment about, all things considered.  I will say I am surprised that you would take something I posted and deem it worth incorporating into your delusions...every port in a storm, I guess.

Also, I wish you would stop mentioning my wife. I believe you have probably mentioned her 20 times at least over the months and years. She isn't a member here and doesn't play chess. Also I am absolutely sure that she would say that you're mentally ill. She was a fully trained psychiatric nurse before training as a teacher and then as a psychotherapist. She worked on both long-stay and acute psychiatric wards and gained a lot of experience in a short time. Please don't bring her up again, because I am confident about what she would think of you and I really don't want to have to mention it again.

Ermm, you brought her up when you were originally trying to diagnose various posters over the Internet .  You also brought her up here in this thread, before I did.  Perhaps you should avoid making calls to authority if you don't want that authority to be a point of discussion?  This seems obvious enough, but perhaps you need to ponder the notion.

P.S. I am sure I have not mentioned her 20 times, probably under ten times in as many years...and I am doubly sure I have never said a single negative thing about her.  You seem to have contracted ExploringWA's illness, where every mention of anyone in your life (after expounding upon them yourself) is an attack on them.

I was going to try to work in a joke about a 70 year old with a 160 IQ having the mental age of a 112 year old.......but at this point I don't think it works. Oh well. Never mind.....but I am gratified that a few people actually do remember the origin of the concept. 

<<You seem to have contracted ExploringWA's illness, where every mention of anyone in your life (after expounding upon them yourself) is an attack on them.>>

It definitely seems more like 20. It isn't an attack on her but you see it as an attack on me. However, she's a realistic person who knows that there are people running around who are not well. No mental health professional is going to look at you and think you're well. You should try to realise that you are obsessive-compulsive and its severe, so it's a disorder. I know that coming from me, you aren't going to take a blind bit of notice but you aren't a happy person, to the extent that it's affecting you negatively. For your own sake, try to understand that you may have some role models here who are extremely negative and bad for you. I'm not trying to harm you. I would like to help but that isn't possible until you see that there's something not quite right.

There are too many people in this thread reinforcing your views and the way you act. I think you should drop all attempts to try to correct other people's behaviour and just interact in threads in a friendly and non-threatening way. Try to make people like you. I don't mean the wrong people either ... the ones who are the bad role models. Just ordinary, happy, friendly people. Just learn to interact non-threateningly and in a friendly way. It would do you a lot of good if you could manage it.

eh?

@5419
"I think chess will eventually be solved" ++ Probably, depends on money 3 million $.

"Just not in our lifetimes" ++ Maybe, depends on money 3 million $.

"I do think we will eventually have the technology?" ++ We already have it.

"Is it technology we understand now?" ++ Yes.

One way the discussion here could make some progress here by tygxc or someone else is by accepting that all of the "proof" and calculations presented here (number of relevant positions and relevant lines, calculation abilities of current computers) are all estimates.

Tygxc is actually putting in some real effort to make real calculations but is too tied in with the 5 years and other presumptions, presenting them and all calculations based on these presumptions as facts. Only thing we got is an estimation based on calculations with all variables being optimal. Would like to see a range of estimations having the variables suboptimal, like for example assuming we need to calculate a (exponentially) larger amount of relevant lines and positions than tygxc is estimating and similar approach with other variables in this equation. See what kind of opposing estimations we end up with, that perhaps demonstrate why this wouldn't be a realistic goal in our lifetime.

Right now there is some abstract discussion and objections that don't necessarily lead anywhere while Tygxc has taken a concrete but shallow path. I certainly cba to make any calculations but in case someone feels inspired

Read your entire post and apply it to the correct target...yourself.  Now read my post, and remove your ego-driven assumptions about me being upset about you, and accept that you do not come across as wise or competent, but as a hypocrite who is oblivious to his own behavior.

It would do you a lot of good...if you could manage it,

@5449

"number of relevant positions" ++ Yes, 10^17 is an estimate arrived at in 2 ways:
1) top down from number of legal positions 10^44, then discarding positions that cannot result from optimal play to 10^32, then applying analogy to Checkers and Losing Chess to 10^17.
2) bottom up calculating an upper bound assuming no transpositions, calculating a lower bound assuming all transpositions, then taking the geometric mean, then adding more to 10^17.

"abilities of current computers" ++ That is established: a billion positions / s
https://chessify.me/blog/nps-what-are-the-nodes-per-second-in-chess-engine-analysis 

"larger amount of relevant lines and positions than tygxc is estimating"
Here is some dispute.
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? is a sure loss for white, checkmate in 82. Thus that position and the whole tree that could result from it is not relevant and a waste of computer time.

AlphaZero ranked all 20 opening moves from best to worst with no other input but the Laws of Chess. https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.09259 Figures 5 & 31. Once the 4 best moves 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, 1 Nf3 are proven draws, then the 16 worst moves cannot win either and thus are irrelevant.

The final position of this game https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164259 is a clear draw.
Neither side can win. This position and the whole tree that can result from it until 3-fold repetition is irrelevant and a waste of computer time.

"a realistic goal in our lifetime"
++ It is realistic, can be done in 5 years,
but costs 3 million $ to hire the 3 ICCF (grand)masters and rent the 3 cloud engines.

"objections that don't necessarily lead anywhere"
++ Yes, e.g. the completely irrelevant 50-moves rule.

When Chinook had evaluated all the legal openings in checkers, no-one was foolish enough to suggest it was ok to ignore all but 4 of them when solving checkers. That is because they understood what solving a game means to those who do research in this area.

Everyone knows that @tygxc uses his own special language where "solve" means something entirely different, while failing to understand that if you change the definition, you don't answer the question, you answer a different question.

hi

@5453
""solve" means something entirely different"
++ No, I adhere strictly to van den Herik:
'the game-theoretic value of a game is the outcome when all participants play optimally'
'weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition'
'optimal means most desirable or satisfactory' - Webster
'oppose means to strive against, resist' - Webster

1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? is not optimal play and does not oppose to the game-theoretic value.
1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, 1 Nf3 are more optimal and resist more to the draw than the other 16.

I was trying to help. Again, "hypocrite" can apply only to yourself. I knew you would try to use it against me but you're only using it against yourself. You're mentally ill and most people on this site who know you know that. Not the people in this thread, for the most part though and that's why you hide here these days. Again, I have no need to read your posts and I don't do so but a glance is enough to get the general tone. What I wrote about you is true and correct. It is obvious that all the anger comes from you and that the obsession and compulsive behaviour does too. Anyone should be able to see it and most people do.

All those familiar with the peer-reviewed literature understand that "any opposition" means any legal opposition. You use an inappropriate, woefully vague (i.e. undefined and undefinable) alternative.