31,536 million positions in a year @ 1000 per second. Everyone is guessing here. Don't pretend you aren't. I think there's far more work to be done than some people realise. Sorting, comparisons, etc. Assessing one position means assessing millions of positions, or haven't you worked that out? There's interchangeability but that comes at a price: that of comparing or sorting. I don't think you'll get 1000 per second and the three GMs aren't going to be good for much more than 30 per day on average between them. So forget them.
10 ^17 positions is roughly 3 x 10^7 years, or 30 million years. And 10 ^17 is an underestimate, due partly to the work that has to be done seperating your 10^17 relevant positions from the rest.
You're talking complete nonsense. Even only 10 ^17 positions at 1000 per second is rather a lot of years.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
@6099
"the engine top 1 move coincides with the top 1 engine move"
++ No, the engine top 1 move coincides with the 7-men table base correct move.
Here you're contradicting your own statement.
You said
I previously posted calculations of two of your irrevelant positions. The engine top 1 move coincided with the top 1 engine move.
I gently pointed out
Firstly, I think you'll find the engine top 1 move coincides with the top 1 engine move whatever game played by an engine you consider.
Now I find you attributing your howler to me.
There are multiple tablebases and multiple correct moves for each, so you should say "a correct move" not "the correct move".
"A tablebase correct move, not necessarily the top" ++ It is either table base correct or not.
We already knew you don't understand tablebases. What you say is true for a particular tablebase but not necessarily for different tablebases.
Certainly it is generally not "the top or not" in different tablebases.
"That would depend on how you plan to do it." ++ I have explained.
"And I did nothing wrong with my version of Stockfish."
++ Your version makes mistakes and mine does not.
Not true. SF15 is rated higher than SF14. Your version of Stockfish is just too bone idle to play enough games to make mistakes.
"A think time of 2048 seconds is getting closer to the 17s on a 10^9 NPS that you've quoted."
++ Agree, but if my engine top 1 move is already table base correct I do not need more.
Your calculations take the results of multiple games to determine error rates. That's why I provided you with multiple games. You're not going to get very far with a single game with unknown think time if you're going to apply your calculations to it.
"I haven't generated any games from the position myself." ++ I did.
One as far as I know. Is that enough to talk about "games" plural?
[Deleted text reinserted: You appear to be saying that]"only positions and think times where you can demonstrate a good correlation between what your calculations predict and the actual results, or positions where the actual results are unknown, are relevant to verifying your calculations."
++ I posted 2 of your irrelevant positions above and my top 1 engine move coincided with the table base correct move, while yours did not. You deny you have a problem.
Yes, I deny I have a problem.
You have a comprehension problem.
Some of mine had mistakes, but I think it's likely that some of those with a similar think time to whatever was your average think time did not. (I've not fully checked my games against the tablebases. You're supposed to be doing that.)
If you like you can run the same set of positions I posted with the same fixed think times and we can look at how closely the error rates match. But preferably first just get on with posting your calculations based on the games I've already run.
I posted 2 relevant positions games and again the top 1 engine move coincided with the table base correct move.
Good.
As I said your positions are relevant because all positions are relevant to verifying your calculations.
Now, after all that obfuscation, will you stop wriggling and post your calculations for the games here? Then the rest of us can discuss the topic.
Do you realise you've once again obfuscated and supplanted my good post with this ridiculous argument which is not of your doing?
"You have a comprehention problem" was more/less the last thing I said to him, before he refused to anwer me any more. But it sticks out a mile. The comprehension problem, that is.
There is a phrase for that - confirmation bias. This is a slightly different version of it as @tygxc is using it to fool himself that he can prove the result rather than that the result itself is true.
[Formatting due to chess.com. Don't ask me...]
As for habitually leaving out bits of your text to make it appear you've said something completely different, there's probably a phrase for that too.
As for habitually leaving out bits of your text to make it appear you've said something completely different, there's probably a phrase for that too.
Misrepresentation.
@6106
"There are multiple tablebases and multiple correct moves for each" ++ Yes, and yes, sometimes
"true for a particular tablebase but not necessarily for different tablebases"
++ You do not understand table bases.
The game states and the correct moves are the same in all table bases.
"SF15 is rated higher than SF14."
++ That may well be, but on my desktop with less time the engine move coincides with the/a table base correct move and on your computer it does not, so you have a problem.
"Your calculations take the results of multiple games to determine error rates."
++ Yes: 1469 ICCF WC games and 1000 AlphaZero games.
"Some of mine had mistakes" ++ So you have a problem with your Stockfish configuration.
"preferably first just get on with posting your calculations based on the games I've already run."
++ Preferably get on with relevant positions like the 2 I posted.
Kasparov once said "computer will never beat top chess human players"...
@6114
Yes, Kasparov said: "Never shall I be beaten by a machine!" in an interview in 1989.
https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/computers.html
"Chess will never be solved" falls into the same category:
people not wanting something to happen and therefore stating it cannot be done.
@6106
"There are multiple tablebases and multiple correct moves for each" ++ Yes, and yes, sometimes
"true for a particular tablebase but not necessarily for different tablebases"
++ You do not understand table bases.
The game states and the correct moves are the same in all table bases.
Not under competition rules.
Here's Nalimov and Syzygy in the KNNKP position I posted after Black's first move, but with ply count set to 0.
Nalimov shows 12 winning moves.
Syzygy shows 1 winning move.
Here's a related ply count 0 position.
Nalimov shows a win.
Syzygy shows a draw.
"SF15 is rated higher than SF14."
++ That may well be, but on my desktop with less time the engine move coincides with the/a table base correct move and on your computer it does not, so you have a problem.
No. You still have a comprehension problem.
SF's error rates don't necessarily improve with more think time. They can deteriorate.
Get off your arse and generate your own set of games with the same think times if you don't believe me.
"Your calculations take the results of multiple games to determine error rates."
++ Yes: 1469 ICCF WC games and 1000 AlphaZero games.
Conveniently chosen so that you can't tell how many mistakes were made nor how the think times compare with SF at different think times, not even the same ruleset and mostly terminated by agreement or the TCEC draw rule.
"Some of mine had mistakes" ++ So you have a problem with your Stockfish configuration.
No I don't. I have a problem with the mental capacity of the person I'm talking to.
"preferably first just get on with posting your calculations based on the games I've already run."
++ Preferably get on with relevant positions like the 2 I posted.
Then generate a complete set of games. I've spent enough time on it. You're the one who claims your calculation works. Try doing something to test it.
The positions you posted are neither more nor less relevant to verifying the correctness of your method than the ones I already posted.
You only need one counter-example to show it doesn't work. I've generated four sets of games for you here. See if you can find a counter-example among those. Stop prevaricating - post your calculations for those games.
@6116
"Nalimov shows 12 winning moves. Syzygy shows 1 winning move."
++ That does not matter. 1 winning move is enough. A table base does not even have to show winning moves, DTZ or DTM: just the information if the position is a draw or not is enough,
as the rest can be deduced from looking at the legally reachable positions.
"Syzygy shows a draw." ++ No, Syzygy shows a win that exceeds 50 moves without capture or pawn move, that is a win just the same. The 50-moves rule plays no role in weakly solving Chess. Black can achieve the game-theoretic value of the draw without invoking the 50-moves rule.
"SF's error rates don't necessarily improve with more think time. They can deteriorate."
++ I do not believe that. If you believe that, then reduce your time to eliminate your error.
"you can't tell how many mistakes were made" ++ I can tell by statistics.
"how the think times compare with SF at different think times"
++ Derived from the AlphaZero paper
"not even the same ruleset" ++ A more decisive rule set: table base win claims that exceed 50 moves without pawn move or capture are allowed, but such claims do not happen.
"mostly terminated by agreement" ++ Because neither side can win. Likewise none of the decisive games ended in checkmate and none in a 7-men endgame table base win claim,
neither exceeding 50 moves without pawn move or capture or not.
"preferably first just get on with posting your calculations based on the games I've already run."
++ Preferably get on with relevant positions like the 2 I posted.
"Then generate a complete set of games." ++ OK, I will generate some more games.
"The positions you posted are neither more nor less relevant to verifying the correctness of your method than the ones I already posted." ++ My positions are relevant, yours are not.
"You only need one counter-example to show it doesn't work." ++ A relevant one.
"post your calculations for those games." ++ I have shown why they are not relevant and I have shown for 2 that you make an error with your calculation.
@6116
"Nalimov shows 12 winning moves. Syzygy shows 1 winning move."
++ That does not matter.
It does if you use Nalimov and pick one of the others, but you should have used Syzygy! You said it didn't matter which tablebase you used, right?
@6114
Yes, Kasparov said: "Never shall I be beaten by a machine!" in an interview in 1989.
Like Sveshnikov, Kasparov is 100% reliable.
@6118
"you should have used Syzygy"
++ I used Syzygy, but it does not matter.
Syzygy is just more compact than Nalimov, so it fits on a hard disk.
The core information is the same: draw / win / loss.
@6119
"Like Sveshnikov, Kasparov is 100% reliable."
++ Kasparov was proven wrong and I have proven Sveshnikov right:
Chess can be weakly solved in 5 years.
Chess players are more reliable when they speak of Chess than when they speak of themselves.
<<"That would depend on how you plan to do it." ++ I have explained.>>
Yes, three GMs. Not convincing.