Chess will never be solved, here's why - Chess Forums - Page 300

MEGACHE3SE

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5981

Optimissed wrote:

MEGACHE3SE wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

In his physics thesis he discovered evidence for an unknown state of matter and since then, it seems to have been somewhat confirmed. His thesis was to represent magnetism in terms of fermionic spins. I asked him if chess could be reduced to a set of equations such that if the equations were solved, we would could solve positions that way. He said no, it's impossible. That means, in reality, it can't be done say within 50 years at the present rate of progress.

ey yo thats really cool. thanks for defining more clearly what you meant by 'represented' and yeah, that was different than what i meant. i should have clarified what i meant better.

also " That means, in reality, it can't be done say within 50 years at the present rate of progress." - i agree with that.

when i say represented, i meant the rules of the game itself being put into a computable format. I didnt intend for the algorithm to evaluate within human capabilities.

I'm sorry I was unclear. There are so many trolls and bozos around. It's difficult to tell who's on the level and who isn't. I was teasing you a bit because I wanted to see what your reaction is. At least you reacted in a way that makes sense. You are what you say you are. Sorry I had to find out.

all good.

DiogenesDue

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5982

Optimissed wrote:

Oh, you mean that a strategy is a legal move unless it's stalemate? That would include losing, probably. You're really all as daft as each other. Elroch isn't far behind you. At this point I'm thinking tygxc is a lot more sensible than both of you put together with btickler thrown in for luck, although I'm not sure it would really be very lucky for anyone who won him. If only tygxc could forget about the five-year-plan, I'd have no hesitation in backing him on average against any of you.

That makes perfect sense, since your derangements are so similar.

mpaetz

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5983

Optimissed wrote:

I think you're wrong. I think my son's Masters Degree dissertation (MMath) was about the

contents of stars. But it is meant as an equivalency in a different way. Scrambled eggs is ridiculous but can't be proven not to be true because we can't analyse the light being emitted from that star NOW.

You don't know what your son's dissertation was about, you don't know if he has a PhD, but you claim him as the authority that informs your understanding of most points being debated here?

Realize that according to you, your son could not have discovered anything about the composition of stars as he can't analyze the light being emitted from them NOW. Perhaps he did prove that some stars are composed of scrambled eggs.

MEGACHE3SE

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5984

mpaetz wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

I think you're wrong. I think my son's Masters Degree dissertation (MMath) was about the

contents of stars. But it is meant as an equivalency in a different way. Scrambled eggs is ridiculous but can't be proven not to be true because we can't analyse the light being emitted from that star NOW.

You don't know what your son's dissertation was about, you don't know if he has a PhD, but you claim him as the authority that informs your understanding of most points being debated here?

Realize that according to you, your son could not have discovered anything about the composition of stars as he can't analyze the light being emitted from them NOW. Perhaps he did prove that some stars are composed of scrambled eggs.

mpaetz did u see the part where i said that there is/was some definition confusion? also, you are making a mistake on a difference that optimissed and I pointed out. that is the difference between a scientific proof and a math proof.

whether the sun is egg is a scientific question. the complexity of solving chess is a math question.

also physics at that level is so freaking complex that optimissed cant be faulted for not knowing exactly what it was about (what he said was also somewhat rhetorical).

MARattigan

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5985

Optimissed wrote:

MARattigan wrote:

Elroch wrote:

A chess strategy is a decision process that suffices for all positions that can arise against any opposing play. i.e. it picks a move in every position that can arise when applying it.

I hope seeing the definition helps you.

To nit pick it needn't necessarily pick a move. It could pick a draw claim under the 50 move or triple repetition rules or the offer or acceptance of a draw or nothing at all if it's not your move.

It could also leave you free to pick from a selection of moves (as in a strategy that takes one of the best moves from Syzygy when available),

I would prefer:

A game strategy for a player is a function from the set of game positions with values that are (possibly empty) sets of actions for that player that are legal under the rules.

Where a game position means simply a situation arising in a game.

Oh, you mean that a strategy is a legal move unless it's stalemate? That would include losing, probably...

No. A legal move is not a strategy. I mean a strategy is what I said. You seem to have problems with the term so I've told you what I mean by it.

Neither would stalemate include losing, but a strategy for a player could be a losing strategy e.g. one that maps the initial position to {resign}. You can have good strategies and bad strategies. The definition doesn't pass judgement.

tygxc

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5986

@8103

"Sveshnikov's plan: the conclusion has been reached before the investigation begins"
++ The aim of weakly solving Chess is not to ascertain that Chess is a draw, we already know that, but rather to establish how.

DiogenesDue

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5987

tygxc wrote:

++ 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.

tygxc

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5988

@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.

MEGACHE3SE

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5989

"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.

tygxc

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5990

@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.

MEGACHE3SE

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5991

" 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.

tygxc

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5992

@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.

tygxc

Jan 30, 2023

0

#5993

@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.

MARattigan

Jan 31, 2023

0

#5994

tygxc wrote:

@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?

MEGACHE3SE

Jan 31, 2023

0

#5995

tygxc wrote:

@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.

MARattigan

Jan 31, 2023

0

#5996

'Fraid he is. You think he's trying to solve chess - there's your inaccuracy.

DiogenesDue

Jan 31, 2023

0

#5997

Optimissed wrote:

btickler wrote:

tygxc wrote:

++ 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).

DiogenesDue

Jan 31, 2023

0

#5998

Optimissed wrote:

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.

DiogenesDue

Jan 31, 2023

0

#5999

Optimissed wrote:

It isn't derogatory. Just a colloquial description.

Sure, like "he's gone doolalli" is just a colloquial description.

DiogenesDue

Jan 31, 2023

0

#6000

Optimissed wrote:

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.