Chess will never be solved, here's why - Chess Forums - Page 278

TheChessIntellectReturns · 2022-01-16T22:50:19-08:00

Imagine a chess position of X paradigms. Now, a chess computer rated 3000 solves that position. All well and good. Could another computer rated a zillion solve that position better than Rybka? No, because not even chess computer zillion could solve the Ruy Lopez better than a sad FIDE master coul

Optimissed

Sep 30, 2022

0

#5541

NervesofButter wrote:

Mathematics is the universal language. This is why Carl Sagan was involved in what went on the gold disks on the voyager probes.

Science is the quest for truth. Not fact, but truth.

Just the quest to find out what works in what way when. Science is necessarily pragmatic and engineering even more so.

Optimissed

Sep 30, 2022

0

#5542

btickler wrote:

llama36 wrote:

It goes beyond that though. The fun thing about math is it could still be done even if this universe didn't exist. If nothing we know of existed, we couldn't talk about color or shape or time, etc. But all the math we know right now would still exist.

True, but would it apply to all potential universes? One can posit a universe where all numbers are 1 and all math equations reduce to 1.

Only an imaginary and non-existent universe. Positing it doesn't make it in any way real or useful.

Optimissed

Sep 30, 2022

0

#5543

Elroch wrote:

Mathematics is not "less than" science. It is incomparable to science (not a value judgement).

Their domains are entirely separate (even though mathematics provides a valuable service to science, and there is some practical benefit in the opposite direction).

I can say this with some authority, based on two mathematical degrees and 14 years working on applied physical science, mainly on mathematical and computational modelling.

Science is observation of interactions of things, together with drawing logical conclusions from such observation. Maths is completely abstract and not about things but about, I would suggest, the logic of measurement and the interactions of measurements. It's abstract but can be applied to real things.

Optimissed

Sep 30, 2022

0

#5544

btickler wrote:

tygxc wrote:

@5608
"come to the conclusion that chess is a draw"
++ I gave not one but 6 arguments. At least taken together this evidence
compells the mind to accept the fact that chess is a draw as true.
Argument 5 needs understanding of probability.
Argument 6 is deductive.

...Ponz, is that you? Ponz also had the "I gave many arguments, and quantity = certainty" mindset.

I toyed with that idea, briefly. David Taylor is still apparently alive but he had Parkinson's Disease, very sadly. It's mentally degenerative. The chances are that it has taken its toll. Also the writing style is very different. Quantity = certainty is a pragmatic argument, which was largely accepted in science, maybe up to midway through the last century.

Optimissed

Sep 30, 2022

0

#5545

Elroch wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

We're witnessing a clash between the old way of "doing science" and the new. Although my heart is with the older way, I believe tygxc needs to adjust his wording to reflect that difference, particularly regarding the proper meaning of deduction. Then all should be well.

No, we are not.

Solving a game is not science. It is basically a maths problem associated with the theory of combinatorial games. It is of course of very minor interest to the theoretical subject which concerns itself with general results, but is of interest because of the historical status of the game itself (and as a motivation to develop efficient procedures to do such things).

By contrast, the four colour theorem is natural and fundamental, involving no arbitrary set of parameters (such as the rules of chess), and the same is true of many general theorems of combinatorial game theory.

The task that can be achieved by a "scientific" approach (i.e. inductive reasoning from empirical information) is a different one. Specifically, you can arrive at results that are uncertain (eg according to model M, there is a high probability that the optimal result is R) and approximate (eg strategy S probably loses very rarely), by contrast with a type of mathematical proposition that is certain and precise, achieved by rigorous deduction.

As usual, Elroch, you are not concentrating. Please try to take other people's comments in the correct context. Best for you to understand what I mean rather than pick holes in it. You're also very repetitive: I no longer wish to be on the receiving end of your treatise on the four colour theorem. Time for you to invent a new way of not understanding what others are saying.

MARattigan

Sep 30, 2022

0

#5546

Optimissed wrote:

btickler wrote:

llama36 wrote:

It goes beyond that though. The fun thing about math is it could still be done even if this universe didn't exist. If nothing we know of existed, we couldn't talk about color or shape or time, etc. But all the math we know right now would still exist.

True, but would it apply to all potential universes? One can posit a universe where all numbers are 1 and all math equations reduce to 1.

Only an imaginary and non-existent universe. Positing it doesn't make it in any way real or useful.

And you wouldn't be there anyway, at least not with both your legs intact.

rumialol

Sep 30, 2022

0

#5547

tygxc wrote:

#12
Here is what solved means:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game

I doubt Go will be solved before chess. Lee Sedol even won a game against AlphaGo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo_versus_Lee_Sedol

true, the thing about the game against alpha go was that it was the first real attempt at creating an ai for go, think deep blue vs kasparov. Alphazero was actually able to play go, chess, and shogi but people only really talk about its chess. the alphago that lee beat that time was beaten 100 to 0 by alphago master and that gets dominated by alphago zero which is slightly worse at go than the same alphazero that we chess fans talk about all the time. apparently deepminds mu:zero was better than alphazero at all 3 games while being better than any human at over 40 atari games but they never released any of its chess footage.

DiogenesDue

Sep 30, 2022

0

#5548

Optimissed wrote:

Only an imaginary and non-existent universe. Positing it doesn't make it in any way real or useful.

I see. So you can heal people with your mind, but multiple universes are out of the question .

llama36

Sep 30, 2022

0

#5549

btickler wrote:

llama36 wrote:

Yeah, I'm way too tired for this conversation

But it's a fun topic.

And sure, I see what you mean. Math exists but may not be practical, and even then it may be difficult to discover.

This is probably not worth saying, but just in case...

For the record, the caveman math joke is from my childhood and seemed applicable given the discussion...in no way was I referring to your tiredness .

Nah, I didn't take it as a jab.

Also is it really a joke? Because I heard a story about teaching some forgotten tribe basic skills. The children were able to learn to count, but the adults struggled... because in their language and culture, it truly was "one, two, many" heh.

Optimissed

Sep 30, 2022

0

#5550

btickler wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

Only an imaginary and non-existent universe. Positing it doesn't make it in any way real or useful.

I see. So you can heal people with your mind, but multiple universes are out of the question .

I didn't know your understanding is improving. Yes to both.

More relevantly, multiple universes is conjecture that's more suited to corny sci-fi from the 50s and before. It's nonsense and there's zero evidence for it. Acually, it would be impossible to obtain evidence since another universe is wholly disconnected from other universes. Otherwise they don't count as other universes but just part of THE universe.

Before you ask for a link, I probably came up with that argument myself. I have seen it repeated recently, well over 10 years after I came up with it. I know for a fact that a lot of people read me on Facebook, back in the day.

If you can't get evidence, it doesn't count as science. It certainly isn't theory. Therefore that makes it fiction.

DiogenesDue

Sep 30, 2022

0

#5551

Optimissed wrote:

I didn't know your understanding is improving. Yes to both.

More relevantly, multiple universes is conjecture that's more suited to corny sci-fi from the 50s and before. It's nonsense and there's zero evidence for it. Acually, it would be impossible to obtain evidence since another universe is wholly disconnected from other universes. Otherwise they don't count as other universes but just part of THE universe.

Before you ask for a link, I probably came up with that argument myself. I have seen it repeated recently, well over 10 years after I came up with it. I know for a fact that a lot of people read me on Facebook, back in the day.

If you can't get evidence, it doesn't count as science. It certainly isn't theory. Therefore that makes it fiction.

Yes, we know all about your fame and fortune on Facebook. Thanks for not mentioning you are the top debater Facebook has ever known, that was considerate of you.

Optimissed

Sep 30, 2022

0

#5552

I actually think it's a bit weird that there are people who think you can't heal people with your mind. After all, if they believe you can't then what do they possibly know of it? It would be like people thinking swimming is impossible.

Optimissed

Sep 30, 2022

0

#5553

You'd be more interesting, btickler .... er .... if you could manage to be ineresting. Why not have a bash eh? After all, you're among friends here .... no need to be shy. Give us a shock.

DiogenesDue

Sep 30, 2022

0

#5554

Optimissed wrote:

You'd be more interesting, btickler .... er .... if you could manage to be ineresting. Why not have a bash eh? After all, you're among friends here .... no need to be shy. Give us a shock.

Always the overreaching and empty additional post ...you really should work on that. Just sit on your hands and find the right move, to put it in chess parlance...

Optimissed

Sep 30, 2022

0

#5555

Stop with the pretentious stuff, although you do it perfectly. Over-reaching would seem to apply to you. Tell me why healing people with your mind is impossible. I'd be interested if you could manage to formulate an argument, since you always seemed to think that I couldn't put forward arguments properly and you can. I haven't seen any evidence for anything more than empty rhetoric from you .... so give it a whirl.

MARattigan

Sep 30, 2022

0

#5556

No. Healing with your mind would be impossible. They'd finish up with leprosy.

Optimissed

Sep 30, 2022

0

#5557

Very good but I suggest we leave it to the expert, who knows all about its non-existence.

Optimissed

Sep 30, 2022

0

#5558

NervesofButter wrote:

MARattigan wrote:

No. Healing with your mind would be impossible. They'd finish up with leprosy.

The mind is a powerful thing. And I do absolutely think that it is possible to heal yourself by being positive, thinking positive, and staying positive. But healing someone else WITH your mind? Gonna have to pass on that one.

I have one or two ideas regarding the nature of thought, which would mean that it's possible.

Optimissed

Sep 30, 2022

0

#5559

Even staying positive enough to be healthy yourself is not easy for many or even most people because staying positive means you have to give up something.

DiogenesDue

Sep 30, 2022

0

#5560

Optimissed wrote:

Very good but I suggest we leave it to the expert, who knows all about its non-existence.

Your ploy to get me to try to take a stand on something you know you can cast doubt on endlessly is noted, but I don't have time to waste teaching you why "mind over matter" is not possible for you.

You'll have to settle for all the other times I've blown your arguments out of the water.