IIRC Go has more positions...but evaluating Go positions should take less CPU horsepower than evaluating Chess positions.
this part gets medal in absurdness as well. congrats.
Go ahead and dig through some source code, we'll wait. I hate to inform you, but both Checkers and Go have simpler mechanics that make individual position evaluations easier for brute force computation.
@7260
"You could also then tell us which version or versions you propose to solve."
++ The Laws of Chess
"If it's not enough to win, it's not an advantage"
++ The first move is an advantage, called the initiative and representing 1 tempo.
That is not enough to win: to win a pawn is needed.
White has many good moves that draw and few bad moves that lose.
Black has few good moves that draw and many bad moves that lose.
"I wouldn't have thought there's much you can do with 1/3 pawn"
++ 3 tempi are the equivalent of 1 pawn. You can sacrifice a pawn if you get 3 tempi in return. You can give up 3 tempi to win a pawn.
"Under FIDE rules it just takes checkmate"
++ You cannot win by a direct attack on the king if your opponent defends optimally.
Queening a pawn is a more feasible way. That is why a pawn is enough to win, and so is a bishop, but a tempo is not enough to win. You cannot queen a tempo. You can trade a bishop for a pawn and then queen the pawn.
@7307
"both Checkers and Go have simpler mechanics that make individual position evaluations easier"
++ The whole point of solving is to not depend on evaluations, but rather to calculate all the way until the 7-men endgame table base.
@7307
"both Checkers and Go have simpler mechanics that make individual position evaluations easier"
++ The whole point of solving is to not depend on evaluations, but rather to calculate all the way until the 7-men endgame table base.
Shoo. That has nothing to do with his statement being absurd. Would you care to argue that "we are just guessing" and that "one page" may suffice to bridge our way to tablebase results?
after your previous comment you expect answer?if you decide something is absurd i can too,and you're not deciding who stays who goes i have reported you as well.dont worry,or worry i dont care.
Ahhh, the old "everybody's opinion has equal validity" argument...
You can decide something is absurd if you like. It matters little, if you continue to display this level of understanding (or lack thereof).
Oh no...Stockfish 15.1 release just blew Tygxc's premise out of the water. What will the future bring?
https://stockfishchess.org/blog/2022/stockfish-15-1/
"This release also introduces a new convention for the evaluation that is reported by search. An evaluation of +1 is now no longer tied to the value of one pawn, but to the likelihood of winning the game. With a +1 evaluation, Stockfish has now a 50% chance of winning the game against an equally strong opponent. This convention scales down evaluations a bit compared to Stockfish 15 and allows for consistent evaluations in the future."
No 1.0 point pawn evaluation, no 0.33 tempo valuation. These valuations/equivalencies were removed for being obsolete.
if you believed that then why did you say that i wont be here long?your comment is a contradiction .
Well, admittedly it depends on you...if you are oblivious to any flak that comes your way when you post illogical conclusions, you can last here a long time...ask Tygxc.
woy
that wasnt illogical conclusions, it was sort of exaggeration .a book a page thick or a mountain high,meaning we dont know how long it is.i'm a math teacher i know what logical is also know what joke is .that was it.
Your "book" will stretch out of the solar system 
. Not one page. Not a mountain. That's not a guess, and we *do* know. Printing out a 7 man tablebase (18+ terabytes for the "abridged" tablebase, and 140 terabytes for the full tablebase) by itself would be taller than a mountain, and that's only 10^15 positions...which is 0.00000000000000000000000000042383684% of the best estimate for the number of unique and legal chess positions.
Thus...absurd statement and illogical conclusion.
your comment is again absurd and illogical. first how do you know the size o f letters
depending on it ,it may be one page or strech out of universe as well.and second about thickness again i assume you know graphene ,how do you my pages arent graphene if they are the book would me much thinner than a mountain.this shall go on like this .logic isn't as linear as you think
You really have a problem understanding large numbers. I thought the examples might help. Apparently not. So, in your world, "stretching out the solar system" reduces to "much shorter than a mountain" by changing from paper thickness to graphene thickness (not that your contortion of your own example isn't also absurd)? Graphene is ~1 million times thinner than paper. That's only 6 orders of magnitude.
Let's apply that to the percentage I gave...that changes 0.00000000000000000000000000042383684% to 0.00000000000000000000042383684%. Yeah, you're really making a lot of headway there.
His comment was fine, if uninformed.
Do you mean because that's not what you're talking about? Because you can easily get an opening book to carry you out fifty moves, and if you've only got seven pieces left on the board, then there you go.
So I assume you mean *all* positions. Mapping out chess so you can get from starting position to the end via any route?
in fact either you have problem understanding or kidding with me .do you remember? i also mentioned size of letters .ringing any bells smaller the size lesser amount this shouldnt be that hard to understand.
What's sad is that even your attempts to retreat are absurd. Why not just say that your "pages" are infinite planes, if you are going to pretend you fully understood how inaccurate your "exaggerated" example was?
I doubt you are a teacher, but if you are...let's all have a moment of silence for your students.
His comment was fine, if uninformed.
Do you mean because that's not what you're talking about? Because you can easily get an opening book to carry you out fifty moves, and if you've only got seven pieces left on the board, then there you go.
So I assume you mean *all* positions. Mapping out chess so you can get from starting position to the end via any route?
50 moves is 100 ply from the starting position. Please feel free to give as a sampling of all these "easily gotten" opening books...or tell you what, you start analyzing on Stockfish on your PC from the opening position, and post back here when you get to 100 ply...
your doubt means nothing to me.as someone calling me liar i have no more time to waste,or accept.you better accept you're a zombie with humor circuit in the brain totally fried?a simple joke even a kid could understand but you failed .sorry for you,on second thought not sorry i dont care.
Your "joke" was easy to understand. It was just a joke made about something you lack knowledge about. Kind of like a flat earther making a joke that ridicules the idea that the earth revolves around the sun. It tends to fall flat.
That's your idea of proof/support? A screenshot of one opening database (not really an opening book, btw) that lists 100 half moves in a text description "book depth" field? How many games in the database, how many openings, and how many actually go out to 100 ply? Where's the rest of the "easily gotten" opening books that go out 50 moves (and for all openings covered)?
your doubt means nothing to me.as someone calling me liar i have no more time to waste,or accept.you better accept you're a zombie with humor circuit in the brain totally fried?a simple joke even a kid could understand but you failed .sorry for you,on second thought not sorry i dont care.
Your "joke" was easy to understand. It was just a joke made about something you lack knowledge about. Kind of like a flat earther making a joke that ridicules the idea that the earth revolves around the sun. It tends to fall flat.
oglum senin beyin hasarin mi var lan?soyledik o kadar anladinmi defol git.
git başımdan güvensizliklerle dolu küçük adam
I think the important thing is to have noticed the tone that I was using throughout, and to have honored that by matching it. That's the problem. I came back to say that in most cases you actually can't get past thirty moves, because when I go through the process over in Fritz that's what I discover. I guess it's all right to still come in here and say it, but man does it suck to have to enter back in to this thought process.
I would think it's possible to make an opening book long enough to reach to the point that a tablebase could take over. If that counts, then there ya go. (?)
that book may be just one page ,or as thick as a mountain height.we still dont know just guessing.
That is an absurd statement.
that guy was possibly kidding,and i answered same ,if you couldnt catch it thats your problem,which make your comment absurd.
His comment was fine, if uninformed. Yours was absurd. I've bolded it for you.
You're not going to last here long.