"No, not arbitrarily, but thoughtfully. That is why Sveshnikov first asked for good assistants and then for modern computers. That is why the grandmasters are as essential as the computers."
lmao you still havent given sufficient evidence that the grandmasters are necessary. my laptop could choose moves better than the grandmasters.
@8106
"Chess is most likely most complex at 32 men"
++ No, you are wrong again.
See Table 3 of Gourion's paper.
That is why the 32 to 26 men should be handled by the human grandmasters with data bases and 26 to 7 men should be left to the cloud engines.
" For example 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 being a black win. Then 1 Nf3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 d3 Nc6 4 d4 is a white win."
you still havent proved why black doesnt just go d4, or something else.
also, gourions paper makes no such comment or inferences of chess's complexity depending on # of pieces.
a game of 32 pieces includes all games of 26 pieces.
you still also havent given any logical evidence for your 10^17 number.
you arent calculating just one white move per turn.
@8155
"my laptop could choose moves better than the grandmasters"
++ grandmaster + engine > engine > grandmaster
If you think that your laptop is that good on its own, then you should play an ICCF tournament and just play the moves your laptop gives you. Watch how much you lose.
There is a reason why some people are ICCF grandmasters and most people are not, despite all of them having access to computers. There is a reason why some qualify for the ICCF World Championship and most do not, despite all of them using engines.
If you have that much faith in computers,
then you should have to accept my strategy stealing argument that black cannot win.
If 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 were a black win,
then 1 Nf3 d5 (engine top move) 2 g3 c5 (engine top move) 3 d3 Nc6 (engine top move) 4 d4
would be a white win.
If you have that much faith in computers in the more comples 32 to 26 men positions,
then you should have no problem accepting my calculation that for 26 to 7 men positions the table base exact move is always among the top 4 engine moves on a 10^9 nodes/s cloud engine running for 17 s, or a 10^6 nodes/s dekstop running for 4.7 hour.
@8157
"gourions paper makes no such comment or inferences of chess's complexity"
Gourion's paper gives the number of positions of 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23 men.
The maximum is at 26 men.
A position of 32 men can only lead to either another position of 32 men, or of 31 men.
A position of 31 men can only lead to either another position of 31 men, or of 30 men.
A position of 30 men can only lead to either another position of 30 men, or of 29 men.
Complexity grows until reaching 26 men and then diminishes again.
"you still also havent given any logical evidence for your 10^17 number."
++ I gave that several times.
I start from Gourion's 10^37.
I divide by 10,000 as a random sample of 10,000 shows no positions reachable with optimal play from both sides.
a multiply by 10 to accept positions with 3 or 4 queens.
I take the square root as weakly solving only needs 1 black response.
Sqrt (10^37 * 10 / 10,000) = 10^17
"you arent calculating just one white move per turn"
++ Of course not, weakly solving Chess requires 1 black response to achieve the game-theoretic value of the draw against all opposition, i.e. against all reasonable white moves.
@8106
"Chess is most likely most complex at 32 men"
++ No, you are wrong again.
See Table 3 of Gourion's paper.
That is why the 32 to 26 men should be handled by the human grandmasters with data bases and 26 to 7 men should be left to the cloud engines.
Yes, I admit I was wrong.
I said
You've obviously read somewhere that the number of basic rules legal positions reaches a maximum at 26 men but overlooked the fact that you can have a limited number of distributions of material with 26 men in any one game. The number of basic rules positions with 32 men would be of the order of 10^8 or 10'9 times the number that can occur in any of those distributions.
whereas, in fact, you read in Gurion's paper that the number of legal diagrams without excess promotions reaches a maximum at 26 men.
Let me rephrase it.
You've obviously read somewhere that the number of legal diagrams without excess promotions reaches a maximum at 26 men but overlooked the fact that you can have a very limited number of distributions of material with 26 men in any one game. The number of diagrams with 32 men would be of the order of 10^8 or 10^9 times the number that can occur in any of those distributions.
Is that better?
@8157
"gourions paper makes no such comment or inferences of chess's complexity"
Gourion's paper gives the number of positions of 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23 men.
The maximum is at 26 men.
A position of 32 men can only lead to either another position of 32 men, or of 31 men.
A position of 31 men can only lead to either another position of 31 men, or of 30 men.
A position of 30 men can only lead to either another position of 30 men, or of 29 men.
Complexity grows until reaching 26 men and then diminishes again.
"you still also havent given any logical evidence for your 10^17 number."
++ I gave that several times.
I start from Gourion's 10^37.
I divide by 10,000 as a random sample of 10,000 shows no positions reachable with optimal play from both sides.
a multiply by 10 to accept positions with 3 or 4 queens.
I take the square root as weakly solving only needs 1 black response.
Sqrt (10^37 * 10 / 10,000) = 10^17
"you arent calculating just one white move per turn"
++ Of course not, weakly solving Chess requires 1 black response to achieve the game-theoretic value of the draw against all opposition, i.e. against all reasonable white moves.
"I take the square root as weakly solving only needs 1 black response". you arent just calculating 1 black response, theres your innaccuracy.
'Fraid he is. You think he's trying to solve chess - there's your inaccuracy.
++ The aim of weakly solving Chess is not to ascertain that Chess is a draw, we already know that, but rather to establish how.
Quoting for posterity.
I don't see what problem posterity is going to have with that. You don't even understand the terminology you support, btickler. Ultra-weakly is supposed to establish that it's a draw. If you want to continue making a fool of yourself, of course it's up to you. But the sensible thing would be to discuss it in terms of the terminology I use and then maybe you wouldn't be so confused.
Just stop posting if you can't grasp anything about the topic. Seriously. You've been embarrassing yourself for weeks on end.
The statement that chess is already a certain draw is what I am quoting. This statement makes it clear that Tygxc is working backwards from his conclusion, and doesn't use the scientific method at all. In fact what he is doing is what led to the scientific method being created in the first place.
Highlighting the statement will make it easier to find later, which is a good thing, since all the sane people coming into the thread are opposing Tygxc (and you, his terminology-impaired hanger-on).
Incidentally, Deolali, in the State of Maharashtra, India, was a British transit camp and there was a was a sanatorium there for the mentally ill. Hence "he's gone doolalli".
My wife once or twice mentioned the phrase "Deolali tap". She had an uncle stationed in India before or during WW2 and he would have used it. "tapped" is a British phrase for "mentally challenged or ill" and it would originate from the idea of being tapped on the head. Also from the Persian "fever" and similar in Sanskrit.
If your wife is a practicing therapist and uses derogatory phrases about people with mental health issues, you *might* want to keep that to yourself...if you like, you know, eating and having clothes and such.
It isn't derogatory. Just a colloquial description.
Sure, like "he's gone doolalli" is just a colloquial description.
You shouldn't keep talking to yourself, btickler. Especially not on posts addressed to others, because newcomers, who don't know you, won't know it's just what you do when you're talking to yourself. It's understood that you have difficulties and challenges to overcome.
You are the poster boy in your decade here for having difficulties and challenges to overcome. You've been "doolalli" since your teens. Not a surprise to people at this point.
You shouldn't keep talking to yourself, btickler. Especially not on posts addressed to others, because newcomers, who don't know you, won't know it's just what you do when you're talking to yourself. It's understood that you have difficulties and challenges to overcome.
I will say in your favor that it is gratifying that you finally learned how to quote posts without mucking up everything to the point of unreadability the way you used to. It proves you can actually learn something even now.
@7921
"winning lines are irrelevant"
++ This indeed is an important observation.
All legal chess positions fall into 3 classes: draws, white wins, black wins.
For all positions with 7 men or less the 7-men endgame table base tells us which class those positions belongs to.
We also know that the initial position is a draw.
So weakly solving chess involves hopping from the drawn initial position to other drawn positions and finally to a 7-men endgame table base draw.
So of all legal positions only the drawn positions are relevant to weakly solving chess.
The white wins are pitfalls black must avoid, and the black wins are pitfalls white must avoid.
Obvious pitfalls for white i.e. black wins are:
1 g4? 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nxe5?, 3 Nd4? 3 Ng5? 3 Nh4?, 3 Ba6?
Also some logically inferior moves like
1 a4, 1 Na3, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Ng1 are not relevant either.
To weakly solve Chess only one black response that draws is needed.
Probably 1 e4 e5 and 1 e4 c5 draw as well,
but we only need one to weakly solve Chess, so the other is not relevant.
Probably 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 and 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 draw as well,
but we only need one to weakly solve Chess, so the other is not relevant.
Probably 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 and 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 draw as well,
but we only need only one to weakly solve Chess, so the other is not relevant.
This makes it plausible that only Sqrt (10^37 * 10 / 10,000) = 10^17 positions are relevant to weakly solving Chess.
@8165
"you arent just calculating 1 black response"
++ I use the already calculated ICCF WC draws as seeded lines.
I take the black moves as they were and explore white alternatives.
I don't think you should go on and on about mental infirmities in others. Talking of patterns, it can only draw attention to yourself, even if some don't see the pattern right away. And objecting, like you did then, to a harmless colloquialism for "a bit mad" can only reveal undue sensitivity in you to that subject. Keep quiet about it like a good chap and keep on trying because overall, you're winning. I am on your side, you know, but you do need the occasional prod in the right direction.
You're right, maybe I should be more grateful. How about I take out a local ad that drums up some business for your family?
"Chapman: the therapy you need if you are a bit doolalli."
Shouldn't cost much. You might want a better photo, though. Just saying.
@8047
"you have to find that tree first"
++ Yes: for black play the top 1 Stockfish move after 17 s calculation on a 10^9 nodes/s cloud engine, for white explore the top w (e.g. w = 4) Stockfish moves.
Let us take an example with this ICCF game as seeded line.
1 e4. Grandmaster E with cloud engine e will work on this.
Grandmaster D with cloud engine d will work on 1 d4.
Grandmaster C with cloud engine c will work on other first moves that do not transpose, notably 1 c4 and 1 Nf3.
Grandmaster E and cloud engine e will never have to look at any position with a white pawn on e2, shrinking the search space.
1...e5. Grandmaster E selects this. It is probably that 1...c5 draws as well and 1...e6 and/or 1...c6 might draw as well, but a weak solution only calls for one strategy to achieve the game-theoretic value of the draw.
From now on no positions with a black pawn on e7 are relevant. This shrinks the search space.
[snip]
that doesnt work lmao. you prove absolutely nothing, literally by the second move you have a false assumption
Indeed! It is hilarious.
@8047
"you have to find that tree first"
++ Yes: for black play the top 1 Stockfish move after 17 s calculation on a 10^9 nodes/s cloud engine, for white explore the top w (e.g. w = 4) Stockfish moves.
Let us take an example with this ICCF game as seeded line.
1 e4. Grandmaster E with cloud engine e will work on this.
Grandmaster D with cloud engine d will work on 1 d4.
Grandmaster C with cloud engine c will work on other first moves that do not transpose, notably 1 c4 and 1 Nf3.
Grandmaster E and cloud engine e will never have to look at any position with a white pawn on e2, shrinking the search space.
1...e5. Grandmaster E selects this. It is probably that 1...c5 draws as well and 1...e6 and/or 1...c6 might draw as well, but a weak solution only calls for one strategy to achieve the game-theoretic value of the draw.
From now on no positions with a black pawn on e7 are relevant. This shrinks the search space.
[snip]
that doesnt work lmao. you prove absolutely nothing, literally by the second move you have a false assumption
Indeed! It is hilarious.
In order to try to provide some sort of solution within a tight time and cost frame, it's necessary to do something like this. It isn't a false assumption by the second move, since it's acceptable to assume, with about 100% chance of being right, that black cannot win by force. However, it obviously isn't to the taste of those who, probably wrongly, believe that a deductive solution should be possible. I think there are problems regarding what people expect of deduction. In a system like this, which although it's technically closed, is not perfect information, we really can't depend on deduction, because there are too many unknowns. Indeed, I think that tygxc is somewhat along the right lines. I can't see it though, in a cost frame of $3 million and a time frame of five years. What he is proposing is scientifically based, rather than purely deductively based.
Chess is a game of perfect information.
As always, the wise thing would be learn what the term means before arguing.
@8047
"you have to find that tree first"
++ Yes: for black play the top 1 Stockfish move after 17 s calculation on a 10^9 nodes/s cloud engine, for white explore the top w (e.g. w = 4) Stockfish moves.
Let us take an example with this ICCF game as seeded line.
1 e4. Grandmaster E with cloud engine e will work on this.
Grandmaster D with cloud engine d will work on 1 d4.
Grandmaster C with cloud engine c will work on other first moves that do not transpose, notably 1 c4 and 1 Nf3.
Grandmaster E and cloud engine e will never have to look at any position with a white pawn on e2, shrinking the search space.
1...e5. Grandmaster E selects this. It is probably that 1...c5 draws as well and 1...e6 and/or 1...c6 might draw as well, but a weak solution only calls for one strategy to achieve the game-theoretic value of the draw.
From now on no positions with a black pawn on e7 are relevant. This shrinks the search space.
[snip]
that doesnt work lmao. you prove absolutely nothing, literally by the second move you have a false assumption
Indeed! It is hilarious.
In order to try to provide some sort of solution within a tight time and cost frame, it's necessary to do something like this. It isn't a false assumption by the second move, since it's acceptable to assume, with about 100% chance of being right, that black cannot win by force. However, it obviously isn't to the taste of those who, probably wrongly, believe that a deductive solution should be possible. I think there are problems regarding what people expect of deduction. In a system like this, which although it's technically closed, is not perfect information, we really can't depend on deduction, because there are too many unknowns. Indeed, I think that tygxc is somewhat along the right lines. I can't see it though, in a cost frame of $3 million and a time frame of five years. What he is proposing is scientifically based, rather than purely deductively based.
No, it is not acceptable to include reasonable guesses as part of a proof. This is not a difficult point.
@8104
"so we will arbitrarily start from a few selected positions with 20% of the pieces eliminated"
++ No, not arbitrarily, but thoughtfully. That is why Sveshnikov first asked for good assistants and then for modern computers. That is why the grandmasters are as essential as the computers.
I presented a complete rationale starting from an ICCF WC draw as the seeded line.