To add yet more noise explaining what it means for a game to be solved, I have to share my favorite math video of all time:
(direct link in case embed doesn't work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYj4NkeGPdM)
A lot of it is directly relevant to chess (and every other combinatorial game) as a mathematical framework for primitive analysis of openings/tactics — Winning ways for your mathematical plays .
Great video, a lot of fun.
To add yet more noise explaining what it means for a game to be solved, I have to share my favorite math video of all time:
(direct link in case embed doesn't work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYj4NkeGPdM)
A lot of it is directly relevant to chess (and every other combinatorial game) as a mathematical framework for primitive analysis of openings/tactics — Winning ways for your mathematical plays .
Great video, a lot of fun.
Just makes me think, there is probably a game theoretic interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Seriously. (Conway et al's work on games as numbers arrives from a combinatorial viewpoint at something very useful for all of the mathematics of quantum mechanics and could likely be used as an alternative foundation. Conway is of course known for one piece of work relating to QM - the "free will theorem").
While the topic of this forum, the discussion and my last post has got rather dull, here is something much more interesting! It's a beautifully simple (class of) game(s).
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.
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.
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.
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.
wow so intersting - wait no one cares
I'm sure you can see the logical error in your premise if you think hard enough.