@5888
"reasonable for a weak solution" ++ Only a weak solution is reasonable.
"the 7 piece tablebase is woefully inadequate" ++ The 7-men endgame table base suffices.
There are much more positions around 26 men than around 8 or 9 men.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
I think it will be solved because white is one move ahead ?
@5890
"I think it will be solved because white is one move ahead"
++ Yes, white is one move ahead, but one tempo in the initial position is not enough to win.
Chess is a draw. It is harder to prove a draw than to prove a win.
Oct 5, 2022
0
#5765
tygxc wrote:
@5886
"the 50 move rule is to be included" ++ You can include it if you want: it plays no role.
I include it if I'm playing under FIDE cometition rules, otherwise not. (I don't play in TCEC - you have to be an engine and you have to be invited.)
I'm asking you whether the game you're offering to solve includes it. That's not my decision, it's yours, but you appear to be incapable of making it.
The solution of chess without the 50-moves rule also applies with the 50-moves rule.
Only if you're a moron.
"TCEC win and draw rules" ++ Of course once the 7-men table base is reached the calculation stops and the result is retrieved from the 7-men table base.
That is not TCEC rules, FIDE rules or ICCF rules. My question was not about your "calculation"; it's, "what do you mean by "chess" when you offer to solve it?".
Incidentally no show yet for your calculation of the theoretical result and error rates in my games here. Are you still working on it? What rules are you going to assume?
Will it take more than 5 years?
You just need to do that then we can ignore your "calculations". I think your "calculations" are out by several orders of magnitude in those games. See what you make it.
Oct 5, 2022
0
#5766
Try playing the chess.com computer at max, showing the engine, with custom setup of kings facing queens. Perfect diagonal symmetry of the board. Look at what the engine says on the moves, the advantage and disadvantage scale . . .
Hi
Oct 5, 2022
0
#5769
Also btw, If any of you can get chess.com to please enable white to castle even when one plays under custom setup with kings facing queens, and you're white, that would be cool. I maintain it is a flaw in the system for white to not be able to do so under this specific custom setup. (I tried contacting support, but did not receive any finality on the validity of my request.)
Oct 5, 2022
0
#5770
Not really a flaw: if the king is not on the home square in a legal position in chess, castling rights have been lost.
Admittedly, 960 goes beyond legal positions, with a different castling rule, so your wish could be another variant option.
Optimissed wrote:
Even MAR, in a brief moment of semi-clarity, agreed with me that you're fundamentally wrong. Many others, seemingly intelligent people, have disagreed with you here.
I don't get this.....by your own admission, he is agreeing with you and yet you gratuitously insult him. Why would you do that? Do you actually think you're providing some kind of service to the community?
I have no intention of getting into a protracted debate over this. I likely won't post again....but hoped you would give it some thought.
mikekalish wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Even MAR, in a brief moment of semi-clarity, agreed with me that you're fundamentally wrong. Many others, seemingly intelligent people, have disagreed with you here.
I don't get this.....by your own admission, he is agreeing with you and yet you gratuitously insult him. Why would you do that? Do you actually think you're providing some kind of service to the community?
I have no intention of getting into a protracted debate over this. I likely won't post again....but hoped you would give it some thought.
I gratuitously insult HIM? 
I'm sorry but you haven't been following this have you.
Oct 5, 2022
0
#5773
Merci, I appreciate all inputs! This setup is part of a new variant, enigma chess. But yes, I believe that chess has been solved and also hasn't been solved. The extent to which a human can comprehend and replicate the solution is limited, and so is the computer's. Chess has a solution, for sure. But brute computation whether by a human or computer is, in my opinion, not powerful enough to bring that infinitely perfect solution to the fore. Thus, the solution to chess, relative to a human, is simply: “The strongest computer is the solution.” Nobody can argue with the best computer, and that computer will just keep improving until every possible chess position is accounted for and analyzed in every possible way, and the best move forward is determined under every possible circumstance. That could take quite some time, 😄 In that regard, chess has not been solved. The computer has not solved chess relative to the infinitely perfect solution to chess which is out there. (These are just my personal thoughts.)
TheEnigmaPiece wrote:
Merci, I appreciate all inputs! This setup is part of a new variant, enigma chess. But yes, I believe that chess has been solved and also hasn't been solved. The extent to which a human can comprehend and replicate the solution is limited, and so is the computer's. Chess has a solution, for sure. But brute computation whether by a human or computer is, in my opinion, not powerful enough to bring that infinitely perfect solution to the fore. Thus, the solution to chess, relative to a human, is simply: “The strongest computer is the solution.” Nobody can argue with the best computer, and that computer will just keep improving until every possible chess position is accounted for and analyzed in every possible way, and the best move forward is determined under every possible circumstance. That could take quite some time, 😄 In that regard, chess has not been solved. The computer has not solved chess relative to the infinitely perfect solution to chess which is out there. (These are just my personal thoughts.)
Hi we tend to think it would take millions of years at the present rate of progress, except tygxc who says 5 years, as long as we buy the three GMs regular liqorice sherbets.
Yes well, there's so much calculation in solving chess. And storage and comparisons ....
Oct 5, 2022
0
#5777
I believe that matter, mathematics itself, and time are all relative. Call it the theory of general relativity of everything. :peaceful
@5892
"whether the game you're offering to solve includes it"
++ The same weak solution without the 50-moves rule also applies with the 50-moves rule.
"what do you mean by "chess" when you offer to solve it?"
++ The game as described in the Laws of Chess. https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012018
"my games here" ++ Your games are not of interest. ICCF WC draws are of interest.
"What rules are you going to assume?" ++ The Laws of Chess.
"Will it take more than 5 years?" ++ Weakly solving chess takes 5 years.
TheEnigmaPiece wrote:
I believe that matter, mathematics itself, and time are all relative. Call it the theory of general relativity of everything. :peaceful
Fair enough. Do you not think, though, that we couldn't think all things are relative if they are not also synchronously absolute? That is, if we think that some things are relative, doesn't that mean that we assume knowledge about them in an absolutist sort of way? Or is that knowledge also relative and absolute synchronously?
That is perfectly reasonable for a weak solution, although the 7 piece tablebase is woefully inadequate to make solution practical.