@7979
++ What is the relevance to (weakly) solving Chess?
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Jan 29, 2023
0
#5883
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
optimissed the "weakly solved" that tygxc is claiming to cite is literally defined by there being such an algorithm.
There is no algorithm possible in chess for what is being claimed. Chess in reality is not a strategy game. So algorithms will fail in most cases. As chess is a 100% tactical game. And every chess position only has 3 true evaluations. White wins, Black wins, or the position is a draw with perfect play.
And they only way to know what one is correct is by pure calculation in most cases.
And that is the reason why chess will never be, and can never be solved.
The game tree is just far too vast.
again, thats not how algorithms are defined in terms of "solving" you know the 7 piece tablebase? that's techinically an algorithm.
TB are not an algorithm. TB are tables of already calculated moves and stored. There is no calculation being done.
Algorithm defined.
a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer.
yes. the rules are to follow the tablebase.
you have an input and output.
@7981
++ What is the relevance to (weakly) solving Chess? Is this semantics only?
Jan 29, 2023
0
#5885
tygxc wrote:
@7981
++ What is the relevance to (weakly) solving Chess? Is this semantics only?
its literally the terminology u use and the method you attempt to define.
there would be about 10^17 positions in the database of the weak solution to chess.
@7984
"you still also havent proved that black doesnt always win"
++ The first move is an advantage called the initiative, albeit insufficient to win.
Chess cannot be a black win because of strategy stealing. Whatever you device as a possible black win, there is a white sequence that achieves the same position in reverse by losing a tempo.
Besides, it runs contrary to millions of human and engine games at top level: most are draws, some white wins, less black wins. In all decisive games you can pinpoint one mistake.
wow!
ChatGPT has entered the chat.
achievement
Optimissed wrote:
btickler wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
[Link removed]
I think she could possibly help you with your problems. I don't know what she charges.
Please, do your daughter a favor and take that link down.
I did it just because I expected such a reaction from a paranoiac. But I will do, because, amazingly, you had the sense to remove it from your quotation, so you aren't being a hypocrite for once. That doesn't mean I don't know you're mentally ill, though. It means you were right on this occasion. I know you deny having such problems but quite frankly, anyone who can write such stuff as you do has at the very least a marked personality disorder. I think it runs deeper and that would explain your extreme sense of over-conventionality as well as your noticeable aggression against anyone who offends your personal sense of social morality. You may have heard of Judge Jeffries.
Your memory is a bit off 
.
This is not the first, nor even the second time that I have done something like this when you posted something oversharing about your family. I have also done the removed link bit for several other old codgers lacking in good sense over the years. I'm actually quite consistent about it. There's no reason others should suffer for your indiscretions.
Cool
Wow
Jan 29, 2023
0
#5896
Optimissed wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@7911
"a weakly solved game has an algorithm for perfect play"
++ No, a weakly solved game has
a strategy to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition.
A strategy is no algorithm.
A strategy can be a set of moves like Checkers, or a set of rules like Connect Four, or a combination, most likely for Chess.
a strategy is an algorithm by definition lmao.
Yes but not a precise algorithm. If I find myself two pawns up with a winning attack I may choose strategies. There may be some danger in the winning attack whereas using the threat of the attack to get the pieces off with an easily won ending is a strategy I might adopt. An engine might be more likely to go for the winning attack. The endgame strategy might be the best course for me because there's no danger. Such a strategy may be much more complex than the strategy of pursuing the winning attack but the tactics are easier. An engine might have difficulty in finding such a strategy by chance.
nono i know in regular speak a strategy isnt an algorithm, but in the math terms that tygxc uses it is.
I think tygxc uses the term wrongly. He feels he's backed up by the experts but I believe I was able to demonstrate that they also were confused and why that occurred.
Sorry, but no. This entire post reveals your confusion. It is necessary to be very arrogant to think that you, as someone with no basis for expertise, can dismiss the body of knowledge with which you are not even very familiar.
Game theory, like mathematics, computer science and information theory, is a rigorous subject, to the extent that its results are mechanisable (and often mechanised). The games dealt with are abstract representations of those humans play, as precise as the representation of a symmetry group or a data structure.
The root of the trouble is involving games theorists in solving chess. It isn't appropriate because games theorists actually do use paper algorithms to score strategies, in order to try to shape a procedure to the best replication of real life cause and effect. However, the scoring methodology is sheer guesswork which is honed by successive approximations. Their procedures consist of models of reality.
No. How did you come to believe such a thing?
Guesswork is inapplicable in solving chess and therefore games theory is inapplicable. The original fault would be with whatever dodo first involved games theorists, unless, of course, they themselves were the dodos. The only applicable strategy is finding good moves. Nothing else.
Guesswork has no place in the entire body of knowledge of game theory.
Optimissed wrote:
@btickler, just to be clear, I'm aware that you've twisted your narrative to make it about "you helping me", whereas of course, you never have any intention of "helping others" unless it's to your advantage. In this case, again you are trying to portray a picture of you that is on the look-out to help others, whereas I (and others) know that the reverse is true. You like to harm people, if you can, if you feel offended by them. And you feel offended if they deviate from your prescribed course regarding any of what you believe are "moral issues", as here.
I don't post accounts or opinions that are not true, at least to the best of my ability to perceive the truth. Sometimes I play around with people who irritate me in other ways and you have certainly irritated me recently. Just bear in mind that you can be manipulated very easily and also bear in mind that most people here in these forums are normal, sane and reasonably intelligent people. Do you see me getting into arguments with them? No, it's just one or two, who might very well be nutcases. You can think of me what you wish but that doesn't mean that others are going to share your opinions automatically. Most people form opinions of others in relation to the way they feel those people have treated them and others, as I do with you.
Yours is not to turn everything around, pretend to be an angel and blame others.
Self awareness...you really need to find some. Maybe you cannot perceive that your current musings about leaving the forums are due to the dwindling presence of just 1 or 2 posters...the ones that represent the silent multitudes you always claim to be championing.
It's funny to watch you try to spin things. I am in full agreement that you believe that the stuff you post is true. More's the pity.
Jan 29, 2023
0
#5898
Optimissed wrote:
I don't post accounts or opinions that are not true, at least to the best of my ability to perceive the truth.
For most people, including you and me, it is often impossible to distinguish between these two concepts. Once someone has become convinced that their opinion is correct they often close their mind to the reality that this is only an opinion and see those with contrary opinions, or doubts about the certainty of any opinion, as misunderstanding, ignorance or willful falsification.
@7976
'tactics: the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat
or the art or skill of using available resources to reach an end' - Webster