I have just noticed a slight problem. Use 2048 seconds on 10^17 positions (ignoring the huge inadequacy of this number) and you need 6.6 trillion years.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Yes, if you remember, we worked out that the true number is more than that, by a long way. I was talking in terms of trillions of years because I didn't think people would believe the true numbers. Then billions and millions. I think the point hit home in some areas but unfortunately not with tygxc, who still believes it's 5 years.
Naturally, we're to blame, for not taking into account the remarkable workrate of the three grandmasters, who can out perform the latest computers by a long way.
@6091
"I have just noticed a slight problem." ++ A problem with your arithmetic...
"Use 2048 seconds"
++ No, 17 seconds per white move, in which 17 billion positions are evaluated per engine.
"you need 6.6 trillion years" ++ No, you calculate wrong.
10^9 positions/s/engine * 3 engines * 3600 s/h * 24 h/d * 365.25 d/a * 5 a = 4.7 * 10^17
Oct 13, 2022
0
#5966
Unbelieveable numbers? No not really. The only unbelieveable number is that you are still going on about this 305 pages later. Some people need to get a life. Try playing chess, instead of arguing about it.
Oct 13, 2022
0
#5967
tygxc wrote:
@6091
"I have just noticed a slight problem." ++ A problem with your arithmetic...
"Use 2048 seconds"
++ No, 17 seconds per white move, in which 17 billion positions are evaluated per engine.
"you need 6.6 trillion years" ++ No, you calculate wrong.
10^9 positions/s/engine * 3 engines * 3600 s/h * 24 h/d * 365.25 d/a * 5 a = 4.7 * 10^17
Every new position requires an evaluation in your cockamamy approach - either picking a strategy move or ranking the top few defensive moves according to an engine. The latter is of course inadequate to solve chess but, in addition, if you use a cursory evaluation you have more chance of missing a good move.
@6096
"Every new position requires an evaluation"
++ Of course: each of the 3 engines evaluates 10^9 positions/s so as to arrive at the 3 white alternatives to the ICCF WC drawn game and the top 1 black defences to those.
"or ranking the top defensive moves. The latter is of course inadequate" ++ No. If the end result is a table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition, then that retroactively validates all black moves.
"if you use a cursory evaluation you have more chance of missing a good move"
++ There is no cursory evaluation: it is the selection of the top 4 white moves during 17 s on the cloud engine (corresponding to 4.7 h on a desktop): the move of the drawn ICCF WC game and 3 top alternatives. The table base correct move will always be among those 4, except in 1 case in 10^20 positions, while there are only 10^17 relevant positions.
Oct 13, 2022
0
#5969
It is bonkers to claim that a billion positions are enough! Twice as bonkers (on a geometric scale) as claiming 10^17 positions will do (10^8 times as bonkers on a linear scale).
Oct 13, 2022
0
#5970
tygxc wrote:
@6089
"You haven't posted calculations of any of the positions I posted."
++ Yes, I did. I pointed out your problem with your version of Stockfish.
If you repeat a lie three times it doesn't make it true.
Pointing out a non-existent problem with my version of Stockfish on spurious grounds is not, repeat not, posting your calculations for any of my positions.
"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.
"As you yourself remarked it didn't always coincide with with the top 1 move" [Deleted text reinserted: of your unspecified tablebase.]
++ No, the top 1 engine move did coincide with the table base correct move.
A tablebase correct move, not necessarily the top, according to your original post.
"In my 2048 second think time per ply game" ++ The position is not relevant to solving chess and you did something wrong with your version of Stockfish.
I'm neither asserting nor denying that it's relevant to solving chess. That would depend on how you plan to do it. (No please not another cut and paste.)
I am asserting that games played from the position are relevant to checking if your calculations do what you claim they do.
Since your calculations don't refer to anything specific in the starting position they should work when applied to any position. All positions are relevant to checking the validity of your method of calculation.
And I did nothing wrong with my version of Stockfish.
"what think time was used" ++ Much shorter, about 30 minutes for the whole line.
"did you even use Stockfish 15?" ++ No, I used 14, as I wrote above.
Yes, apologies. I've located the post.
"It obviously couldn't have been 2048 seconds" ++ No, much shorter was enough to have the top 1 move coincide with the table base correct move.
"Try running it for 2048 seconds per ply." ++ If I already get the top 1 engine move to coincide with the table base correct move, there is no need for 4 alternatives or a longer thinking time.
If you want to check the validity of your calculations, they give error rates as a function of think time, so a range of times is useful. A think time of 2048 seconds is getting closer to the 17s on a 10^9 NPS that you've quoted. A single game with unspecified think time isn't much use.
(It sounds like you still haven't grasped what minimax pathology is btw.).
[Deleted text reinserted: Instead you continue to vacuously assert] "I had a problem with my Stockfish version." ++ Yes you did.
No I didn't. It's your brain that has a problem.
I get full coincidence of the top 1 engine move and in less time than you. So you have a problem.
If you try generating the games I posted with the same think times (almost certainly with either SF14 or SF15) you will find the same phenomenon.
Not my problem; your lack of understanding.
"Yes, it's a relevant position." ++ Glad you at least agree on that. Do you also arrive at coincidence of the top 1 engine move with the table bases exact move?
In your example I do; I haven't generated any games from the position myself.
I think you will also find a few such examples in the games I posted (when you get round to it, that is).
"all positions are relevant to checking the validity of your method of calculation"
++ No, the estimates of perfect play are derived from nearly perfect play.
Positions that cannot result from optimal play by both players are not relevant.
"all positions are relevant to checking the validity of your method of calculation" is correct. Why "++No" and talk about something different? Again you're using the disembodied "relevant".
"If something is relevant then it's relevant to something."
++ 10^17 positions are relevant to weakly solving Chess and 10^44 are not, though legal.
Strongly disagree, but neither is relevant to verifying your calculations.
"proposals of a procedure for weakly solving chess" ++ I have explained the procedure. Start from a drawn ICCF WC game. Analyse 3 alternatives for the last move, then the 2nd to last move etc. until a position from another ICCF WC draw is reached.
Here is another relevant example: the engine top 1 move coincides with the table base exact move
Again no think time or mention of what is playing, so not very useful.
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 reiterate; All positions are relevant to the verification.
So will you now stop wriggling and post your calculations for the games here? Then we can stop all this pointless discussion about your proposal to solve chess in five years.
PDX_Axe wrote:
Unbelieveable numbers? No not really. The only unbelieveable number is that you are still going on about this 305 pages later. Some people need to get a life. Try playing chess, instead of arguing about it.
Or doing something more interesting than playing chess?
Oct 13, 2022
0
#5972
tygxc wrote:
... The table base correct move will always be among those 4, except in 1 case in 10^20 positions ...
And possibly the half dozen or so I've already posted for you on the thread if they don't happen to be in the 10^-20.
But the figure of 10^20 depends on the validity of your calculations.
Why don't you now stop wriggling and post your calculations for the games here? Then you can stop quoting the figure.
@6098
"a billion positions are enough" ++ a billion positions per second
"10^17 positions will do" ++ Yes, 10^17 total relevant.
@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.
"A tablebase correct move, not necessarily the top" ++ It is either table base correct or not.
"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.
"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.
"I haven't generated any games from the position myself." ++ I did.
"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.
I posted 2 relevant positions games and again the top 1 engine move coincided with the table base correct move.
<<"That would depend on how you plan to do it." ++ I have explained.>>
Yes, three GMs. Not convincing.
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.
Oct 13, 2022
0
#5977
tygxc wrote:
@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.
Oct 13, 2022
0
#5980
MARattigan wrote:
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."
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...]
@6089
"You haven't posted calculations of any of the positions I posted."
++ Yes, I did. I pointed out your problem with your version of Stockfish.
"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.
"As you yourself remarked it didn't always coincide with with the top 1 move"
++ No, the top 1 engine move did coincide with the table base correct move.
"In my 2048 second think time per ply game" ++ The position is not relevant to solving chess and you did something wrong with your version of Stockfish.
"what think time was used" ++ Much shorter, about 30 minutes for the whole line.
"did you even use Stockfish 15?" ++ No, I used 14, as I wrote above.
"It obviously couldn't have been 2048 seconds" ++ No, much shorter was enough to have the top 1 move coincide with the table base correct move.
"Try running it for 2048 seconds per ply." ++ If I already get the top 1 engine move to coincide with the table base correct move, there is no need for 4 alternatives or a longer thinking time.
"I had a problem with my Stockfish version." ++ Yes you did. I get full coincidence of the top 1 engine move and in less time than you. So you have a problem.
"Yes, it's a relevant position." ++ Glad you at least agree on that. Do you also arrive at coincidence of the top 1 engine move with the table bases exact move?
"all positions are relevant to checking the validity of your method of calculation"
++ No, the estimates of perfect play are derived from nearly perfect play.
Positions that cannot result from optimal play by both players are not relevant.
"If something is relevant then it's relevant to something."
++ 10^17 positions are relevant to weakly solving Chess and 10^44 are not, though legal.
"proposals of a procedure for weakly solving chess" ++ I have explained the procedure. Start from a drawn ICCF WC game. Analyse 3 alternatives for the last move, then the 2nd to last move etc. until a position from another ICCF WC draw is reached.
Here is another relevant example: the engine top 1 move coincides with the table base exact move