Optimissed wrote:
Everyone knows with you (btickles) it's cyclical. On heat or something.
Yes, sure, it's always "everyone", isn't it.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
I just read this thread for way too long lol
Jan 29, 2023
0
#5904
Optimissed wrote:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the mathematical study of optimizing agents. For the mathematical study of sequential games, see Combinatorial game theory. For the study of playing games for entertainment, see Game studies. For the YouTube series, see MatPat. For other uses, see Game theory (disambiguation).
Chess is a sequential game, so at that point you should continue with "Combinatorial game theory". That's the point at which you go wrong.
Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic, systems science and computer science.>>>>>
You will see that first on the list of applications of game theory is social science. Social science is a a loose or soft science where it is impossible to make exact mathematical models. All such models are on the basis of estimations and basically guesses. Therefore, as I pointed out, Models are not exact but approximations. Approximations are not suitable for solving chess. Therefore neither is game theory.
I have answered as accurately as I can in a short passage. If someone is intelligent they will understand the point I'm making. If they reject it outright without good argument, they cannot be taken seriously. I say this because I know very well the history of people here, and their incompetence.
Jan 29, 2023
0
#5905
"you will see that first on the list of applications of game theory is social science."
thats not the only application.
cmon man
Jan 29, 2023
0
#5906
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
"you will see that first on the list of applications of game theory is social science."
thats not the only application.
cmon man
@Optimissed
And it doesn't appear in the article on combinatorial game theory at all. The topic was also obviously not intended to be about social science (nor your mother in law, your paranormal abilities or your unfeasibly large brain).
Optimissed wrote:
Always anyone but btickler. Wherever he looks, he sees failure, except in those who see in him competence.
More projection. There's nobody on this website your sentence applies to more than yourself.
Jan 29, 2023
0
#5908
It shouldn't be beyond the capabilities of @Optimissed to understand that the only part of the broad subject of Game Theory that is relevant to chess is Combinatorial Game Theory. While the other parts involve rigorous analysis of abstractions (in the way I referred to earlier), combinatorial game theory is intuitively simpler to comprehend.
Jan 29, 2023
0
#5909
It happens to be a fact that other parts of Game Theory, such as those studied by Nash, find more real world applications. The real world is full of the complications absent from classic games like chess (and dealt with by combinatorial game theory).=:
- more than two players
- imperfect information
- non-sequential actions
and others that don't immediately spring to mind.
Jan 29, 2023
0
#5910
How about this?
Looks like a Win for White.
Now what happens if you replace the missing Pawns?
Then who wins?
Jan 29, 2023
0
#5911
Optimissed wrote:
I suggest you learn about how game theory is used in the social sciences as well as in determining strategies for complex interactions between agents.
And then you can talk about it on a different thread, because it's nothing to do with this one.
Jan 29, 2023
0
#5912
Chess_Marshall1 wrote:
How about this?
Looks like a Win for White.
Now what happens if you replace the missing Pawns?
Then who wins?
I don't see the win in the position you posted. Can you post one against Stockfish? (Any version from 8.)
Jan 29, 2023
0
#5913
Optimissed wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
I suggest you learn about how game theory is used in the social sciences as well as in determining strategies for complex interactions between agents.
And then you can talk about it on a different thread, because it's nothing to do with this one.
I know by now that you have dementia but I will explain once more. The discussion is about the nature of Theory of Games which some people still insist has some connexion to solving chess.
It cannot, because the models used it ToG do not need to be exact. It is however to do with models and as we know, models are no use in solving chess either. Basically, an algorithm is a model and so far they aren't reliable.
The discussion is on the topic "Chess will never be solved, here's why".
To those of us with dementia only combinatorial game theory is relevant to the topic.
Those who have gone beyond dementia think their mother in law and the social sciences are relevant and any old junk like, "Basically, an algorithm is a model ..." (really?), will pass as rational debate.
Jan 29, 2023
0
#5914
It would be false to claim an obvious forced win for white.
I would believe 1. e4 is best, but black has options like 1. ...g6 (to avoid the hassle of Qh5+, since 1. ...Nf6 2. e5 is suspect (but even that doesn't look a clear forced win).
Stockfish believes 1. e4 Nc6 is the best response (to stop Qe5 after Qh5+ g6, I presume) and its evaluation makes it most likely a draw.
Jan 29, 2023
0
#5915
Optimissed wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
I suggest you learn about how game theory is used in the social sciences as well as in determining strategies for complex interactions between agents.
And then you can talk about it on a different thread, because it's nothing to do with this one.
I know by now that you have dementia but I will explain once more. The discussion is about the nature of Theory of Games, which some people still insist has some connexion to solving chess.
It cannot, because the models used in ToG do not need to be exact.
With all due respect, you are getting confused again, presumably by repeating the mistake of thinking the applications of parts of Game Theory distinct from Combinatorial Game Theory are relevant to chess.
Combinatorial Game Theory is a branch of mathematics. It is rigorous and unambiguous. It does not even have the complications associated with infinite objects, as it deals only with finite structures.
It is however to do with models and as we know, models are no use in solving chess either. Basically, an algorithm is a model and so far they aren't reliable.
No, combinatorial game theory consists of theorems about finite objects.
Jan 29, 2023
0
#5916
No, your words (penultimate post) are not what an algorithm is. Compare it to a good definition (or the wikipedia article).
For example, Euclid's algorithm is a systematic procedure for finding the greatest common divisor (GCD) of two integers. He proved it worked using logic, executed it manually and in recent times it is implemented as computer code to do the same thing.
Another algorithm would be one to generate a tablebase for chess.
There are simple algorithms to play perfect chess as well. Unfortunately they require either stupendous time or stupendous precalculated data (such as a 32-piece tablebase).
Jan 29, 2023
0
#5917
optimissed chess can literally be defined by that type of game theory wdym. chess is deterministic with both players having complete information.
Jan 29, 2023
0
#5918
Optimissed wrote:
Looks like I'm right. If you don't understand that an algorithm is a model when it is intended do model reality
Says who? Algorithms work with abstract representations. They might be related to reality or might not. For example, Euclid's algorithm could be applied (even manually) to these two numbers:
4752395632123176451320547124
374593752375832745238459839
How is this modelling reality? It's about abstract entities called natural numbers.
in the way that assessing a chess position does, and you were once intelligent, something has gone very wrong.
@7849
Coming back to the weak solution of Checkers and the image.
Checkers has 24 men on 32 squares, Chess has 32 on 64 squares.
Schaeffer used Chinook and a 10-men endgame table base,
for Chess Stockfish and a 7-men endgame table base are available.
Checkers is most complicated with 23 men, Chess with 26 men.
For Chess the ICCF Finals draws can be used as seeded lines.
Just like Checkers: stored boundary < relevant search space < legal search space
Jan 29, 2023
0
#5920
tygxc wrote:
@7849
Coming back to the weak solution of Checkers and the image.
Checkers has 24 men on 32 squares, Chess has 32 on 64 squares.
Schaeffer used Chinook and a 10-men endgame table base,
for Chess Stockfish and a 7-men endgame table base are available.
Checkers is most complicated with 23 men, Chess with 26 men.
For Chess the ICCF Finals draws can be used as seeded lines.
Just like Checkers: stored boundary < relevant search space < legal search space
"For Chess the ICCF Finals draws can be used as seeded lines."
not necessarily. there is no proof that that is the line.
@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.
You don't seem to know what you're talking about, so back it up.
I can back it up. im literally a math major.