I think it could be solved but would take so much storage space that no one would ever do it.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
@7893
"it could be solved but would take so much storage space that no one would ever do it"
++ 10^17 positions is about 10^15 games. That can be stored.
The time (5 years) and the money $ 3,000,000 is more of a problem.
@7881
"Prof. van den Herik also starts by misquoting his own reference."
++ No, in his 2002 paper he improves the wording the 1994 PhD thesis of his student,
but he correctly acknowledges its provenance.
Professor > student
2002 > 1994
Jan 27, 2023
0
#5827
And I just Reached, 7900.
A multiple of 100.
Speaking of One Hundred.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/an-oldie-but-goody
Jan 27, 2023
0
#5828
tygxc wrote:
@7881
"Prof. van den Herik also starts by misquoting his own reference."
++ No, in his 2002 paper he improves the wording the 1994 PhD thesis of his student,
but he correctly acknowledges its provenance.
Professor > student ≫ beetle ⋙ @tygxc
2002 > 1994
Wikipaedia says (text in blue references in red).
A two-player game can be solved on several levels:[1][2]
Ultra-weak
Prove whether the first player will win, lose or draw from the initial position, given perfect play on both sides. This can be a non-constructive proof (possibly involving a strategy-stealing argument) that need not actually determine any moves of the perfect play.
Weak
Provide an algorithm that secures a win for one player, or a draw for either, against any possible moves by the opponent, from the beginning of the game.
Strong
Provide an algorithm that can produce perfect moves from any position, even if mistakes have already been made on one or both sides.
[1] Victor Allis (1994). "PhD thesis: Searching for Solutions in Games and Artificial Intelligence" (PDF). Department of Computer Science. University of Limburg. Retrieved 2012-07-14.
[2] ^ H. Jaap van den Herik, Jos W.H.M. Uiterwijk, Jack van Rijswijck, Games solved: Now and in the future, Artificial Intelligence 134 (2002) 277–311.
The citations in Wikipaedia justify the preceding statement that a game can be solved on several levels (which corresponds with the content of both papers referred to). No citations follow the definitions themselves.
When discussing the solution of games, at least three different definitions of a solution
can be used. We use the terminology proposed by Allis [7]. Here ultra-weakly solved means
that the game-theoretic value of the initial position has been determined, weakly solved
means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-
theoretic value against any opposition, and strongly solved is being used for a game for
which such a strategy has been determined for all legal positions.
[7] L.V. Allis, Searching for solutions in games and artificial intelligence, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Limburg, Maastricht, 1994.
The paper states that Allis' definitions from his cited paper are used, but the text he includes doesn't mean the same. That is not correctly acknowledging provenance; that is a misquote.
Moreover he improves on it only in the sense that you improve on all the papers that you quote. I have already pointed out in #7691, #7717 and #7738 why the misquoted definition is unworkable.
Just as well you have no intention of using it.
Jan 27, 2023
0
#5829
Optimissed wrote:
Yes, I prefer basic English words used accurately rather than anything that confuses others, since it's pretty clear that even some of the "experts" are confused. Especially the ones here. You certainly couldn't construct a logical argument that refutes anything I have said here so you just try to pretend nonchalance where in reality you're as lost as the rest of them.
You wish to use the word "good" to describe the precise quality of moves. The OED has 48 definitions of this word, with dozens of sub-definitions giving us well over 100 shades of meaning. Not to mention dozens of colloquial uses from different areas of the English-speaking world.
For you to use this term to explain the quality of a move, you would have to add an explanation of exactly what you mean every time to be sure readers didn't quite reasonably think it meant something slightly different from your purpose. Everyone has their own opinion of the meaning of simple words; you often say you don't agree with someone's use of a word, noting a different definition you prefer.
An agreed-upon unambiguous terminology preferable. That posters here disagree about some terms does muddle the debate, but "simple" words with multiple shades of meaning will hardly solve this.
Jan 27, 2023
0
#5830
Optimissed wrote:
...
It already has to be done with the sub-par and very ambiguous nomenclature these people insist upon. ...
No it doesn't have to be done. It's already been done. That's the point.
Only to those who take the trouble to find out what they're talking about, of course.
Jan 27, 2023
0
#5831
Optimissed wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Yes, I prefer basic English words used accurately rather than anything that confuses others, since it's pretty clear that even some of the "experts" are confused. Especially the ones here. You certainly couldn't construct a logical argument that refutes anything I have said here so you just try to pretend nonchalance where in reality you're as lost as the rest of them.
You wish to use the word "good" to describe the precise quality of moves. The OED has 48 definitions of this word, with dozens of sub-definitions giving us well over 100 shades of meaning. Not to mention dozens of colloquial uses from different areas of the English-speaking world.
For you to use this term to explain the quality of a move, you would have to add an explanation of exactly what you mean every time to be sure readers didn't quite reasonably think it meant something slightly different from your purpose. Everyone has their own opinion of the meaning of simple words; you often say you don't agree with someone's use of a word, noting a different definition you prefer.
An agreed-upon unambiguous terminology preferable. That posters here disagree about some terms does muddle the debate, but "simple" words with multiple shades of meaning will hardly solve this.
Not at all. Just like any other word with a specialised definition, that definition would be accepted and understood within context. That's how language works and those being critical don't understand language. It already has to be done with the sub-par and very ambiguous nomenclature these people insist upon. That is, words have to be understood in context. My simplifying suggestions make a lot of sense. Only to those who can think, of course.
Not at all. The flaw with your "simplifying" system is that using words that different people might interpret in different ways clarifies nothing. Haven't you noticed the disagreements and confusion in many chess.com forums over the meaning of "good move", "best move", "perfect play" and the like? The problem is that "good" does NOT have "a specialized definition". You could use any term you wish for the specialized meaning you propose for "good", but its variety of uses in common English will inevitably lead to misunderstanding. You might just as well call the moves that fit your stipulations a "pineapple" move, but don't expect everyone who sees this term to understand your precise meaning.
Jan 27, 2023
0
#5832
Optimissed wrote
Incidentally, chess cannot be represented mathematically.
By definition chess can be represented by math. In fact, there’s an entire field of math dedicated to stuff like chess - game theory
Jan 27, 2023
0
#5833
Tygxc what the heck r u doing, you still haven’t proved that black isn’t winning, your strategy stealing claim is wrong, and you still don’t understand what it means to weakly solve a game. By DEFINITION a weakly solved game has an algorithm for perfect play, and yet you claim that a weakly solves game has no such algorithm.
Jan 27, 2023
0
#5835
You need only look at this page to see you are wrong. Note how shangsung111 uses the word "good" for chess moves. Not exactly the way you have proposed. His "good" move that doesn't worsen your situation could well not be a "best" move that improves your chances. An accumulation of such "good" moves may lead you to miss out on a winning line.
Jan 27, 2023
0
#5836
Optimissed wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
You need only look at this page to see you are wrong. Note how shangsung111 uses the word "good" for chess moves. Not exactly the way you have proposed. His "good" move that doesn't worsen your situation could well not be a "best" move that improves your chances. An accumulation of such "good" moves may lead you to miss out on a winning line.
That's irrelevant, how he uses it. I might use it because I'm enjoying an ice lolly. That doesn't mean it can only be used for that and not because a currency note I paid with is not a forgery.
Think about it some more and be prepared to alter your opinion. People would catch on quickly and in any case this alteration is for the benefit of academics and professionals. Not for this discussion, really.
Wrong again--it IS relevant. My point is that using a common word with many shades of meaning will inevitably lead to many others misinterpreting what you are saying. Your fantasy that everyone would pick up your precise and limited definition of "good" in this context is demonstrably unfounded.
Jan 27, 2023
0
#5837
Now you want us to believe that "winning lines are irrelevant" in an inquiry into the possibility that chess is won/lost from the original position. The problem of being "unable to understand plain English" is that many "plain English" words do not have the precise and limited meaning to everyone, even in a particular context, that you wish them to have,
Jan 27, 2023
0
#5838
I mean, the chances I'm wrong so many times are just about zero. Yet according to you I'm "wrong again". I hesitate to bring up the question of IQ but .... let's just leave it. In your confounded wisdom you and I disagree.
if u bring up iq i WILL call u cringe.
Jan 27, 2023
0
#5839
Optimissed wrote:
I mean, the chances I'm wrong so many times are just about zero. Yet according to you I'm "wrong again". I hesitate to bring up the question of IQ but .... let's just leave it. In your confounded wisdom you and I disagree.
If you simply reiterate the same opinion it doesn't matter how many times you do so; your opinion still has the same chance of being incorrect.
Your bringing up IQ is hardly "hesitating" considering how many times you have boasted about super-genius IQs in your family. You have posted enough content here to give others an idea about that. I remain unimpressed.
Jan 27, 2023
0
#5840
Optimissed wrote:
The forums are full of people being righteously indignant. Don't make a fool of yourself. Try to understand what I'm describing, because anyone who agrees with you on this is similarly challenged. Yes, sure I'm far cleverer than you. Maybe you have a nice singing voice.
It's sad that you seem to be incapable of demonstrating your cleverness and superiority and always regress to casting aspersions on those who disagree with you.
I would be rather surprised if it hasn't been proven to lose. Since you're so keen on proving everything, where is your proof that it hasn't been proven to lose? Do you have one? If not, why are you criticising others?
i dont have a proof of math standard that there isnt a proof out there (in fact, such a feat would be impossible), but I am proposing a lack of knowledge, which is falsifiable. I will happily admit being wrong if you can find one, but you have to find one first.
My wife's back from work and ting. I have some stuff to do.
However, I will say this. Lack of knowledge works both ways and I think a reasonable person would assume that a strong player can tell if something is definitely not losing by force.
Knowledge is often a logical construction on axioms, consisting of deduction. Axioms themselves cannot be deduced. They are mainly based on observation and common sense. Therefore, nothing we know ultimately depends on deduction. You can make whatever construction you wish on that. You can say that knowledge is impossible, and I wouldn't care to try to refute that. However, I think that knowledge is correctly defined as strong highly justified. belief.
have a good day.