We can be sure the number of positions needed for a valid weak solution (as defined in the peer-reviewed literature on the subject) is much greater than 10^17.
The number of positions needed to fail to weakly solve chess (according to the correct definition) happens to be exactly 10^17.
@6043
What is your number and what is your calculation?
I gave my number 10^17 relevant positions to weakly solve Chess and two calculations to arrive at it.
@6007
"The famous and challenging solution of checkers was a weak solution that required years of computation." ++ Checkers also used only 19 relevant openings of the 300 imposed openings.
Are you then asserting that Checkers is not in fact solved?
draughts
I think @tygxc does not understand that it was proved rigorously that the said set of rules worked. The rules define a strategy, the verification of the value of that strategy involves the same exhaustive analysis of all opponent responses.
Elroch, be honest. Don't you think that this conversation is completely ridiculous? I don't like what I consider to be pseudo-technical jargon which allows participants to hide behind it. Even if you aren't hiding behind it, tygxc most certainly is. He completely refuses to talk to me again, because I busted the rubbish he talks via plain language and nil jargon.
@6043
What is your number and what is your calculation?
I gave my number 10^17 relevant positions to weakly solve Chess and two calculations to arrive at it.
And the blatant invalidity has been pointed out to you. You are not at all good at taking on board important points like that.
I think @tygxc does not understand that it was proved rigorously that the said set of rules worked. The rules define a strategy, the verification of the value of that strategy involves the same exhaustive analysis of all opponent responses.
Elroch, be honest. Don't you think that this conversation is completely ridiculous? I don't like what I consider to be pseudo-technical jargon [snip]
Now _that's_ ridiculous.
The correct term is rigour.
Whatever the number of games of chess, it's still a BIG number, comparable to 52 factorial.
And still a BIG number compared with 10^120 whether the 50 move and 3-fold repetition rules are included or not. (Infinite if not.)
Whatever the number of games of chess, it's still a BIG number, comparable to 52 factorial.
Rather amusing point about the video is that it goes wrong almost immediately. First it says that if you have a room of 23 people, there is about 50% chance of two people having the same birthday. This is correct. Then it says, "so if you walk into a room with 23 people in it, the probability of someone having the same birthday as you is 50%".
No!
Specifying you as one of the two people leaves only 23 possible pairs that could match rather than the (23 * 22 / 2) pairs that the correct fact refers to. The chance of one of the 23 people having the same birthday as you is about 1 - (364/365)^23 ~= 6% (ignoring leap years).
@6047
"You are not at all good at taking on board important points like that."
++ What points?
I am sure 10^17 is a good estimate for the number of positions relevant to weakly solving chess.
I am also sure 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white.
I am also sure 1 a4 cannot be better than 1 e4 or 1 d4.
I am also sure 1 Nh3 cannot be better than 1 Nf3.
Whatever the number of games of chess, it's still a BIG number, comparable to 52 factorial.
Rather amusing point about the video is that it goes wrong almost immediately. First it says that if you have a room of 23 people, there is about 50% chance of two people having the same birthday. This is correct. Then it says, "so if you walk into a room with 23 people in it, the probability of someone having the same birthday as you is 50%".
No!
Specifying you as one of the two people leaves only 23 possible pairs that could match rather than the (23 * 22 / 2) pairs that the correct fact refers to. The chance of one of the 23 people having the same birthday as you is about 1 - (364/365)^23 ~= 6% (ignoring leap years).
Ah, but @tygxc could reduce the number of sensible relevant birthdays to 3 bringing your probability of a match up to 94,134,790,219 / 94,143,178,827 (=50% for all practical purposes).
Whatever the number of games of chess, it's still a BIG number, comparable to 52 factorial.
Rather amusing point about the video is that it goes wrong almost immediately. First it says that if you have a room of 23 people, there is about 50% chance of two people having the same birthday. This is correct. Then it says, "so if you walk into a room with 23 people in it, the probability of someone having the same birthday as you is 50%".
No!
Specifying you as one of the two people leaves only 23 possible pairs that could match rather than the (23 * 22 / 2) pairs that the correct fact refers to. The chance of one of the 23 people having the same birthday as you is about 1 - (364/365)^23 ~= 6% (ignoring leap years).
Lol, I had the exact same thought/reaction. That's a Tygxc-level blunder in thinking right there.
And this is the problem with such stories...they lose accuracy in the translation, because somebody lacking in expertise incorrectly equates two things that are not the same at all.
Lol, I had the exact same thought/reaction. That's a Tygxc-level blunder in thinking right there.
Just for accuracy, I don't believe that was tygxc's video. I'm pretty sure he'd know better than that.
Just for accuracy, I don't believe that was tygxc's video. I'm pretty sure he'd know better than that.
I didn't say it was. I said it shows the kind of thinking that characterizes Tygxc's mistaken assumptions and extrapolations 
. He takes a value, doesn't realize the parameters of what that value actually represents, then uses that value in some equation where he conflates it with some other value that actually conforms to a different set of criteria.
TL;DR version: he likes to do apple math with lots of oranges.
I figured that's what you meant....but my comment was intended to keep others from misinterpreting.
I figured that's what you meant....but my comment was intended to keep others from misinterpreting.
I also like to head off misinterpretations at the pass, so I understand the impulse.
I think @tygxc does not understand that it was proved rigorously that the said set of rules worked. The rules define a strategy, the verification of the value of that strategy involves the same exhaustive analysis of all opponent responses.
Elroch, be honest. Don't you think that this conversation is completely ridiculous? I don't like what I consider to be pseudo-technical jargon [snip]
Now _that's_ ridiculous.
The correct term is rigour.
I don't believe that, nor think so for a minute. It's obvious that tygcx is parroting stuff and there's nothing to be learned from what he says, even though I agree with his pragmatic approach rather than with your "rigorous" approach, which I don't think is rigorous so much as an attempt to dominate.
All these numbers you both spout are ridiculous, not rigorous, since they're nothing more than somewhat informed guesses, on both your parts. You can't win this kind of argument through technical detail, since everyone knows they're basically guesses.
Whatever the number of games of chess, it's still a BIG number, comparable to 52 factorial.
Rather amusing point about the video is that it goes wrong almost immediately. First it says that if you have a room of 23 people, there is about 50% chance of two people having the same birthday. This is correct. Then it says, "so if you walk into a room with 23 people in it, the probability of someone having the same birthday as you is 50%".
No!
Specifying you as one of the two people leaves only 23 possible pairs that could match rather than the (23 * 22 / 2) pairs that the correct fact refers to. The chance of one of the 23 people having the same birthday as you is about 1 - (364/365)^23 ~= 6% (ignoring leap years).
Lol, I had the exact same thought/reaction. That's a Tygxc-level blunder in thinking right there.
And this is the problem with such stories...they lose accuracy in the translation, because somebody lacking in expertise incorrectly equates two things that are not the same at all.
That's correct. ty does continually make that kind of mistake. If I were to guess, it's partly caused by boredom and basically desperation about allowing himself to get dragged into this and not being able to extricate himself because of his obsessive and compulsive attraction to it. It's like me winning a really interesting auction lot but not being able to pick it up for a month so I spend the next month reading the lot description and looking at the pictures of it, every day.
Take note, tygxc. (He won't talk to me but I can talk to him and I know he reads it, because he sometimes quotes me in replies to others.)
@6031
"my comment was intended to keep others from misinterpreting"
++ Others misinterprete all the time.
They doubt what is right and are sure about the false.
I present facts & figures and back them up.
@6031
"my comment was intended to keep others from misinterpreting"
++ Others misinterprete all the time.
They doubt what is right and are sure about the false.
I present facts & figures and back them up.
So why don't you back up your claim of being able to determine the game theoretic result of a position and the number of errors in games played from the position by applying your calculations to the games here and back up your claim of 1 error in 10^20 moves at 17 secs. per move on your 10^9 nps machine (which curiously didn't change when you dropped the time from 60 hours to 17 seconds).
No reason to restrict yourself to just draws or just KRPP vs. KRP positions. After the first single error you're bound to have both wins and draws in the game, so that's a pathetic excuse.
And contrary to what you keep posting as you try to wriggle out of the exercise, one of the positions is a drawn KRPP vs. KRP position.
@6041
But the number of legal positions 10^44 and the number of relevant positions 10^17 are smaller.