I think the admins are going to see it for what it is .... you being bad mannered and Llama kindly stepping in.
Nah, they're dumb. They let accounts like his go all the time, and (sometimes) punish people like me who point it out.
I don't care though, because I'm right.
I'm not a mathematician, although I got one of our A levels in maths. That's a pre university qualification which allows you to study mathematics based subjects at degree level but I ended up doing philosophy. However, when I was 9 or 10 I was extremely fast and accurate at calculating and could do complex long division and multiplication fast and hold long numbers in my mind while I was working on something else. We had a sort of a contest at school and in those days, we had mechanical adding machines and some people were quite expert on them. It was a race and I beat the all the people that were using the adding machines. But speed chess doesn't interest me much any more.
But did you hear about the new fortnite battle pass 🤨🤨🤨🤨🤨🤨🤨🤨
snore .... go away, I'm asleep.
Did you hear abt the NEW FORTNITE BATTLE PASS 💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻
@7219
"if every single move was looked over by every grandmaster/former grandmaster,
and chess engine, surely the best move can be found in every positon."
++ Every move by both sides would lead to a strong solution of chess i.e. a 32-men table base, but that would require all 10^44 legal positions, which would take too much time and storage.
4 white moves and each 1 black response weakly solves chess and can be done in 5 years.
@7219
"if every single move was looked over by every grandmaster/former grandmaster,
and chess engine, surely the best move can be found in every positon."
++ Every move by both sides would lead to a strong solution of chess i.e. a 32-men table base, but that would require all 10^44 legal positions, which would take too much time and storage.
4 white moves and each 1 black response weakly solves chess and can be done in 5 years.
Do you know how many published authors on this subject use your mutilated non-definition (it is dependent on many things) of "weak solution"?
Hint: it is less than the number of protons in a hydrogen atom.
I said hundreds of pages ago that weak and strong solutions for solving games are defined by their outcomes and the application of results, not by their methodology. Still 100% true.
@7219
"if every single move was looked over by every grandmaster/former grandmaster,
and chess engine, surely the best move can be found in every positon."
++ Every move by both sides would lead to a strong solution of chess i.e. a 32-men table base, but that would require all 10^44 legal positions, which would take too much time and storage.
You continue to show an inability to grasp the basic ideas necessary to discuss the subject.
A 32 man tablebase constructed according to the methods of any of the tablebases so far produced would be a strong solution if it's for basic rules chess but not a strong solution of competition rules chess. No current tablebases address positions in competition rules chess that include repeated prior positions with the same material.
Nor would a tablebase be required to examine all 4.82 x 10^44 basic rules chess positions (if that was the number you were looking for), only the ones that are winning with ply count 0 and their precursors (which would probably account for most of the 4.82 x 10^44 - so more than 10'44, especially since we haven't solved the problem of determining legality).
4 white moves and each 1 black response weakly solves chess and can be done in 5 years.
Quite hopeless. Totally gaga.
I agree
Why is that??
Because he doesn't have an inability to grasp the basic ideas necessary to discuss the subject perhaps?
I have a good idea. Since you're so full of accusing others of ignorance, how about telling me (us) what "solving chess" means to you? In your own words.
Already done. I'll leave you to trawl back through your acres of vacuous posts to find it.
Whenever people say that, 99% of the time they're fibbing. If you had it right there so you could remember what you think about it, how convenient that would have been.
Brass neck or what?
You either don't bother or are incapable of following anything logical so you switch off if you're presented with a definition. Then having failed to take in the fact that I've already given my own definitions of "weakly solved" and "strongly solved", you prefer to accuse me of lying in preference to trawling back through the crap that you've added to the thread to check your facts.
Nice fellow.
Has chess been solved? No
Can chess be solved? Yes, it takes 5 years on cloud engines.
Will chess be solved? Maybe, it depends on somebody paying 5 million $ for the cloud engines and the human assistants during 5 years.
Have humans walked on Mars? No
Can humans walk on Mars? Yes
Will humans walk on Mars? Maybe, it depends on somebody paying billions of $ to build and launch a spacecraft.
I like this guy.
I like this guy.
Solving chess is a bigger problem.
If you were going to bet on which will happen first...bet on the Mars landing.
Fair enough. Chess has been around since 1000 BCE, and nobody has ever mastered it yet.
For all we know, the first move may actually be a disadvantage. Many are of the opinion that in chess960, moving first is actually a disadvantage. In football, many teams win the opening toss and choose to kickoff. Who knows?
@7255
"the first move may actually be a disadvantage"
++ No. The first move is an advantage, but not enough to win.
@7245
"weak and strong solutions for solving games are defined by their outcomes and the application of results" ++ Yes, that is true.
'weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition'
'strongly solved is being used for a game for which such a strategy has been determined for all legal positions.'
The outcome is a strategy, i.e. a set of moves like Checkers, or a set of rules like Connect Four, or a combination, which is most likely.
"not by their methodology" ++ That is true too. The calculation of the time to either strongly or weakly solve Chess does not depend on how it is done. People here keep making the error of taking the time to strongly solve chess as the time to weakly solve chess.
I have not only calculated the time to weakly solve chess, i.e. 5 years,
but also presented a methodology of how to do it.
@7257
"So what fraction of a point do you get out of it in your solution?"
++ There are only 3 outcomes of a Chess game: either draw, win, or loss.
A tempo up in the initial position is worth 1/3 pawn, as known from gambits.
It takes an advantage of 1 pawn or more to win a game of Chess.
That is also why 1 Na3 e5 2 Rb1 is still a draw: white can afford to lose 2 tempi.
@7257
"So what fraction of a point do you get out of it in your solution?"
++ There are only 3 outcomes of a Chess game: either draw, win, or loss.
Depending on the rules.
According to FIDE competition rules, if you agree a draw simultaneously with your opponent resigning you both win and draw. That is a different outcome from any of the three you mention.
Before you go about solving chess you need a set of rules that can be solved. Your statement
We are talking about solving chess, i.e. the game with all its Laws of Chess.
doesn't do that. Neither does your refusal to decide whether the 50 move rule is in or out or whether we have a 2-fold, 3-fold or 5-fold repetition rule, whether the ICCF tablebase adjudication applies or the TCEC win and draw rules or neither etc, etc.
It is not too difficult to produce a set or sets of rules that is or are capable of solution. It might be a good idea to do that before telling us you will solve chess, otherwise you definitely won't. You could also then tell us which version or versions you propose to solve.
If you manage to settle on a set of rules that has just the three outcomes you mention and your opponent, should you win, draw or lose respectively loses, draws and wins then your statement
++ No. The first move is an advantage, but not enough to win.
is nonsense. If it's not enough to win, it's not an advantage; full stop.
A tempo up in the initial position is worth 1/3 pawn, as known from gambits.
I wouldn't have thought there's much you can do with 1/3 pawn - how would it move? Would it even stand up?
Since you've already had it off the big red telephone that all gambits lose, presumable it's worth is negative.
It takes an advantage of 1 pawn or more to win a game of Chess.
Again depending on the rules. Under FIDE rules it just takes checkmate or a resignation by your opponent (plus sundry other things under competition rules, but pawns don't come into it).
That is also why 1 Na3 e5 2 Rb1 is still a draw: white can afford to lose 2 tempi.
Posting your draw against SF15 could go some way to giving you some credibility, but only some given that SF15 struggles with some king and rook v king positions.
(Are you going to offer the use of your big red telephone to anyone who might want to check your solution by the way? You can't say a game is solved until the solution has been independently checked.)
i'm not just a much better chess player than you,but also a math expert and teacher.
It's not a fair comparison since he doesn't cheat in his chess games.
implying somebody cheating is serious problem in this site, a cause to be banned definitely, and also sign of jealousy.i have saved your comment admins would do whats necessary.
I didn't imply anything, I said you cheat.