Chess will never be solved, here's why - Chess Forums - Page 274

DiogenesDue

Jan 15, 2023

0

#5461

shangtsung111 wrote:

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.

DiogenesDue

Jan 15, 2023

0

#5462

Ian_Rastall wrote:

btickler wrote:

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...

DiogenesDue

Jan 15, 2023

0

#5463

shangtsung111 wrote:

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.

Ian_Rastall

Jan 15, 2023

0

#5464

DiogenesDue

Jan 15, 2023

0

#5465

Ian_Rastall wrote:

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)?

DiogenesDue

Jan 15, 2023

0

#5466

shangtsung111 wrote:

btickler wrote:

shangtsung111 wrote:

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

Ian_Rastall

Jan 15, 2023

0

#5467

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.

DiogenesDue

Jan 15, 2023

0

#5468

Ian_Rastall wrote:

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 don't know why you came back and then decided to confront the poster defending you rather then the poster that disagreed with you...but I guess you bridled at the "uninformed" characterization.

Ian_Rastall

Jan 15, 2023

0

#5469

I was responding to you. I should be quoting these, but I haven't. Except I've fallen into some kind of toxic loop here.

kaeshes

Jan 15, 2023

0

#5470

Wow

DiogenesDue

Jan 15, 2023

0

#5471

Ian_Rastall wrote:

I was responding to you. I should be quoting these, but I haven't. Except I've fallen into some kind of toxic loop here.

Well, I agree that shangtsung111 is toxic, even when speaking in Turkish, but there was no reason to jump on his bandwagon. He seems to have left you behind.

MARattigan

Jan 15, 2023

0

#5472

llama36 wrote:

shangtsung111 wrote:

if its astronomical true.but it may not be

There is a simple proof it will be enormous... namely in the EGTBs we already have.

But you don't necessarily reach the EGTBs.

The starting position could be a forced mate in 10 that never gets below 30 men.

DiogenesDue

Jan 15, 2023

0

#5473

shangtsung111 wrote:

hi ,i agree with what MARattigan wrote.may be a few more moves than 10.
even made an analogy statement :"solution may be a one page book or a book as thick as a mountain
meaning it maybe shorter than we expect ,or not."to a nice person who asked opinion.but an ulo (unudentified living objecct)irritated me
with nonsense hollow talks and accusations for hours.thats why i wasnt in the mood to answer yyou before.
if youre still wondering,yes i live in turkey,izmir.i havvent been to van either.and i wish i could borrow your calm against such abusive people

Try again. I said your comment was absurd (which it was). You took this personally, and replied twice to call my reply absurd, and it went from there with you doing the escalating. You finishing by insulting me in Turkish...a rather craven maneuver.

MEGACHE3SE

Jan 15, 2023

0

#5474

btickler wrote:

MEGACHE3SE wrote:

2 things.

first, Go is much more complex than chess. it took 20 years after deep blue to get the same level for AlphaGo.

second, a massive number of permutations doesnt necessarily mean that something cant be solved. checkers had 10 ^20 and was still solved. of course, chess is much much more complex, but the big number alone should dissuade us.

Your premise assumes that the efforts put into beating the world champs for Chess and Go were the same. This is not the case. Solving Chess was much better PR for IBM than solving Go would have been, so a lot more resources were brought to bear.

In terms of actually solving, IIRC Go has more positions...but evaluating Go positions should take less CPU horsepower than evaluating Chess positions.

evaluating go positions takes WAY more CPU than chess positions.

i recommend you look at the smithsonian article or the one by scientific american.

in terms of raw computing power,

DiogenesDue

Jan 15, 2023

0

#5475

MEGACHE3SE wrote:

evaluating go positions takes WAY more CPU than chess positions.

i recommend you look at the smithsonian article or the one by scientific american.

in terms of raw computing power,

I'll read the articles if you link them, but I did not find any in-depth articles about solving Go or Chess from either publication in my 5 minutes of digging that support your statement, so...I'll stick with the articles I have already read in the past on the subject.

DiogenesDue

Jan 15, 2023

0

#5476

Optimissed wrote:

My wife is waiting for me and I'll have to go in a minute. I've been enjoying talking to you. Regarding the people you were arguing with, nobody can help where they come from and Americans sometimes have less than usual tolerance for different cultures. They can't help it so don't take it to heart! Goodnight.

Americans don't really need you to be a spokesman for them, and if your premise were true, it begs the question of where did this "American" bias originate? Are there any other cultures known for running roughshod over every other culture in their way and appropriating them (and stealing their historic treasures for good measure)?

The only person whose biases you can speak for are your own, and there's plenty of fodder there to keep you busy for a good long time.

tygxc

Jan 15, 2023

0

#5477

@7328

"start analyzing on Stockfish on your PC from the opening position,
and post back here when you get to 100 ply"
++ That takes 15,000 years on a desktop, or 5 years on 3 cloud engines of 10^9 nodes/s.

tygxc

Jan 15, 2023

0

#5478

@7341

"you don't necessarily reach the EGTBs"
++ It is inevitable to reach the 7-men endgame table base at sufficient depth.
In ICCF WC Finals the average is 42 moves i.e. 84 ply.

MEGACHE3SE

Jan 15, 2023

0

#5479

btickler wrote:

MEGACHE3SE wrote:

evaluating go positions takes WAY more CPU than chess positions.

i recommend you look at the smithsonian article or the one by scientific american.

in terms of raw computing power,

I'll read the articles if you link them, but I did not find any in-depth articles about solving Go or Chess from either publication in my 5 minutes of digging that support your statement, so...I'll stick with the articles I have already read in the past on the subject.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-computer-beat-the-go-master/

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16961

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-google-ai-game-go-is-harder-than-chess-2016-3

jimmyy02

Jan 15, 2023

0

#5480

true