@5461
But the word 'opposition' [snip]
The word "opponent" is the relevant one, since this is the word used in the paper. "any opponent".
Every single person with passable understanding of the subject understands the meaning.
@5466
"The word "opponent" is the relevant one" ++ in a paper about Checkers only.
The van den Herik paper is more relevant: 'Games solved Now and in the future'
'All participants play optimally'
'any opposition' not any legal moves
When a GM turns up to a simultaneous display against 100 players aiming to get a 100% score, he doesn't start by saying "I'll take all the wins against players of rating less than 1200 as a given" and then proceed to play the rest.
Hope GM Niemann doesn't read that - you might give him ideas
Given that the so-called strong solution is meaningless in chess terms, which is an obvious fact to any intelligent person, the word "any" in "any opposition" is therefore ambiguous and should be seen as referring to "any reaonable opposition" where the word "reasonable" is also ambiguous but is taken to mean "not downright stupid". That's basically what reasonable means.
The so-called strong solution is merely an exercise in pattern design that has no relation to chess, which is a competitive game where an effort is always made to make useful moves.
Effectively though, "any" opposition means any opposition that isn't downright stupid.
Firstly, it is not "opposition", it is "opponent".
Secondly, "any opponent" (with the italic used in the paper) is unambiguous. It is not some vague subset of them, but ALL of them.
When a GM turns up to a simultaneous display against 100 players aiming to get a 100% score, he doesn't start by saying "I'll take all the wins against players of rating less than 1200 as a given" and then proceed to play the rest. He doesn't get a win if he doesn't play.
Likewise a proof tree has to deal with weak opponent moves as well as strong moves in order to do its job.
"Opposition" obviously includes "opponent" and any of the opponent's moves.
Although why they are talking about opponents beats me. That is also irrelevant since it is moves and not opponents which constitute "opposition" in chess terms.
If people writing papers on solving chess are reduced to discussing the nature of opponents, possibly they don't quite know what they're doing and would be better qualified to work as junior managers in H.J. Heinz's food factory?
@5466
"The word "opponent" is the relevant one" ++ in a paper about Checkers only.
The van den Herik paper is more relevant: 'Games solved Now and in the future'
'All participants play optimally'
'any opposition' not any legal moves
The phrase, "all participants play optimally" is used only to define "game-theoretical value". There is nothing in van den Herik's paper that says the phrase can be applied in any context tygxc pleases.
Of course not "any legal moves".
This is a frustrated win under competition rules.
White to play
White can win against any legal moves but he can't win against any legal moves and draw claims. Legal opposition includes both. It definitely doesn't say, "weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against anything tygxc would play"; I've read it.
The definition you're using is in any case flawed as I've pointed out many times before.
The strategy "play Qa7" from the position below is a strategy that achieves the game theoretic value of a Black win against all opposition (in an abstract game that doesn't include resignation; in the FIDE defined games there can be no game theoretic value). That accords with a weak solution of the position according to your definition, but is not what anybody on the thread except yourself would call a weak solution of the position.
White to play, ply count 0
Incidentally no show yet for your calculation of the theoretical result and error rates in my games here. Are you still working on it?
Will it take more than 5 years? Do you need a supercomputer before you can start?
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.
You understand that people can see right through your constant claims of knowing what anyone/everyone else thinks, right? That's part of your delusion...the idea that you are representative of others when you go out of your way to make it clear you are better than they are and don't give a hoot about them.
You have a few crackpots that talk to you, who are themselves persona non grata in general here and who also habitually try to be a nuisance, as you do. Hardly a representative sample of anything worthwhile.
Crackpot being anyone who keeps well clear of you, I suppose. It figures.
Crackpot being anyone who keeps well clear of you, I suppose. It figures.
No, crackpots consist of:
- Those who think they have psychic powers
- Those you argue against climate change using daffodils as a main argument
- Those who shoot airguns at paper cups in their garages, measuring themselves for accuracy and speed
- Those who pop in and out from the tropics in a manic fashion and declare things that make no sense
Etc.
The specific manifestations are quite varied, but the criteria is pretty much the same.
It's a shame you've nothing to contribute to the thread topic, which isn't about psychic powers, which you're obsessed with.
Daffodils and climate change? I don't know about shooting airguns at paper cups but it seems like a reasonable pastime. You are off your head, you know.
It's a shame you've nothing to contribute to the thread topic, which isn't about psychic powers, which you're obsessed with.
Daffodils and climate change? I don't know about shooting airguns at paper cups but it seems like a reasonable pastime. You are off your head, you know.
I've already contributed far more to this thread and others of its ilk than you ever will with your vague posturing and naysaying of basic definitions.
Background noise is what your arguments amount to. Feel free to peruse the thread and you will find all the concrete things you have forgotten 
.
You mean my arguments are background noise to the noises in you head? You've copied a few of my own arguments after a suitable delay, if that's what you mean by "contributing more".
Anyway, I've better things to do than talk to the self-obsessed. I'm expecting a visitor and have more work to do.
Anyway, I've better things to do than talk to the self-obsessed. I'm expecting a visitor and have more work to do.
If you did have better things to do you wouldn't be adding more of your "and another thing" consecutive posts .
And another thing ...
And another thing
And another thing
And another thing
And another thing
@5461
But the word 'opposition' [snip]
The word "opponent" is the relevant one, since this is the word used in the paper. "any opponent".
Every single person with passable understanding of the subject understands the meaning.
Getting confused here. I thought we were talking about this paper.
1.1 Conventions para.2 (p278.)
weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition,
@MARattigan, I wasn't and you will find the paper published in Science that I referred to linked from my earlier post:
That being said, the meaning of "any opposition" is the same. There is no unambiguous distinction between opposition that needs to be addressed and opposition that doesn't without properly verifying it. Indeed "opposition that is not good enough" can only really be defined unambiguously by the result that it achieves, something which is not certain until it is checked.
The weak solution of checkers and every single other case of weak solution dealt with in the literature of course uses the same definition and is equally thorough in the way that it applies it. That is why the solution of checkers took years of computing.
EVERY single legal move by the opponent of a strategy needs to be checked to a known result (assisted by a tablebase).
Effectively though, "any" opposition means any opposition that isn't downright stupid. That is, that's what it means in practice and is why the so-called strong solution is pointless and has no bearing on the solving of chess, if movements of the pieces are random blunders.
Who gets to judge what is/is not "stupid"? A panel of five GMs? AlphaZero? Optimissed? Once you arbitrarily omit broad swaths of lines from consideration, you open the conclusions reached to reasonable doubt.
@5461
But the word 'opposition' is unambiguous too, cf. Webster dictionary.
'Any' opposition means against 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, and 1 Nf3. Not just one of those.
'All participants play optimally' is unambiguous too.
Relevant are:
How to draw against 1 e4?
How to draw against 1 d4?
How to draw against 1 c4?
How to draw against 1 Nf3?
Not relevant are:
How to win against 1 g4?
How to draw against 1 f3?
How to draw against 1 Na3?
How to draw against 1 h4?