Guys stop with this forum already
This may come as a surprise, but you are under no obligation to read every post on the site. I absolve you of your obligation to open this thread ever again...go in peace.
... dont be cleve4 woth me
Logically, a position is the entire initial chess position divided by a small factor to account for number of moves made. It's still a vast number of operations. Logically, you can't calculate any one position without "solving" most of chess.
tygxc doesn't even understand that and unfortunately, others haven't been clear enough, so that onlookers like Mike_Kalish, who says he tries to follow without much understanding, don't even know who's "winning".
It's been won about 10^17 times: hence Peruvian jungles.
It does seem that anyone not understanding this is pretty stupid.
I mean, it isn't something you should need !Q = 170 to understand.
Because it gives people a chance to argue obstinately and without being willing to change their opinions or learn anything, because of the technical language they use, which isn't properly defined. It isn't even defined at all if you want correct definitions.
Why did this forum become so popular?! me and somebody else was talking about how I'm from st vincent-
I hear St Vincent is the modern capital of crime. Sounds fun if you're young and unattached. Is that true?
Wait no, I'm mixing you up with the British Virgin Islands.
The old pirate capital of the World.
I got mixed up.
Logically, a position is the entire initial chess position divided by a small factor to account for number of moves made. It's still a vast number of operations. Logically, you can't calculate any one position without "solving" most of chess.
tygxc doesn't even understand that and unfortunately, others haven't been clear enough, so that onlookers like Mike_Kalish, who says he tries to follow without much understanding, don't even know who's "winning".
It's been won about 10^17 times: hence Peruvian jungles.
It does seem that anyone not understanding this is pretty stupid.
No one who knows me has ever accused me of being stupid...... or condescending.
Logically, a position is the entire initial chess position divided by a small factor to account for number of moves made. It's still a vast number of operations. Logically, you can't calculate any one position without "solving" most of chess.
tygxc doesn't even understand that and unfortunately, others haven't been clear enough, so that onlookers like Mike_Kalish, who says he tries to follow without much understanding, don't even know who's "winning".
It's been won about 10^17 times: hence Peruvian jungles.
It does seem that anyone not understanding this is pretty stupid.
No one who knows me has ever accused me of being stupid...... or condescending.
You aren't really commenting though are you, although you did comment once that you couldn't really follow it. It isn't surprising since there's a lot of people trying .... I don't know ....trying it on, maybe. This insistence on talking about strategies gives the impression that they're talking about something that those not in the know don't comprehend but they aren't. It's just constant double talk and a refusal on all sides to accept logical necessities.
i dont understand, we are we arguing about? wait not we. YALL?
Can chess be solved. Meaning is it possible to work out the best move by either side to any possible moves by the opponent. I don't really know what else to say. It should be a subject where people can learn from it but it seems more like a subject where no-one even tries to understand others.
So for that reason alone, it's quite a phenomenon. It's about observing the egos of others at work, rest and play.
Oh yes memorising doesn't come into it. Could even a computer memorise it all? There might be too much for even that. And sorting it all out. You talk about strategies but the only kind of method people here are talking about is brute force, meaning that there will be so much data that it would be impossible to sort it out into methods or strategies.
there now please, STOP.
why? is it harmful?
Even if a computer would solve chess, which I doubt, because the possible "reasobable" positions is estimated to be around 10^120 or something, I think that the branching nature of chess after every move would make it humanly impossible to memorize all the move sequences that this computer would provide us. I mean if we could do it, wouldn't we have already used stockfish for this considering it's stronger than any human anyway? We could however, maybe deduce possible themes and strategies in every perfect game the engine provides, which I think could actually be beneficial to human chess
Yes, that's the gist of it. Arguments about how to define "perfect game", what is a "reasonable position", whether or not a computer can solve chess, and how much time and effort will be involved are intricate questions that posters here have been going in circles discussing fill most of this forum. Insults and side topics make it even more interesting.
Logically, a position is the entire initial chess position divided by a small factor to account for number of moves made. It's still a vast number of operations. Logically, you can't calculate any one position without "solving" most of chess.
tygxc doesn't even understand that and unfortunately, others haven't been clear enough, so that onlookers like Mike_Kalish, who says he tries to follow without much understanding, don't even know who's "winning".
It's been won about 10^17 times: hence Peruvian jungles.
It does seem that anyone not understanding this is pretty stupid.
So do you believe, as your statements seems to indicate, that anyone who doesn't understand this debate is stupid?
The visible universe, from Earth out to the furthest known galaxies, only contains about 10^78 elementary particles...
... that's around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 particles...
... which is far too few to keep track of the moves of all possible chess games. Even if only a single electron were to be used to record each move (somehow?) it would still require at least 10^42 times more storage than that to hold the information.
Of course. Storage and retrieval are an insurmountable problem but that doesn't deter the people here.
I would have thought there were more elementary particles than that in the visible universe but I'm just guessing. At least 20 to 30 more anyway. I'll work it out on the back of a cigarette packet in traditional, time-honoured manner.
... dont be cleve4 woth me
Could be difficult. He might manage it on his own.
Logically, a position is the entire initial chess position divided by a small factor to account for number of moves made. It's still a vast number of operations. Logically, you can't calculate any one position without "solving" most of chess.
tygxc doesn't even understand that and unfortunately, others haven't been clear enough, so that onlookers like Mike_Kalish, who says he tries to follow without much understanding, don't even know who's "winning".
It's been won about 10^17 times: hence Peruvian jungles.
It does seem that anyone not understanding this is pretty stupid.
So do you believe, as your statements seems to indicate, that anyone who doesn't understand this debate is stupid?
The visible universe, from Earth out to the furthest known galaxies, only contains about 10^78 elementary particles...
... that's around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 particles...
... which is far too few to keep track of the moves of all possible chess games. Even if only a single electron were to be used to record each move (somehow?) it would still require at least 10^42 times more storage than that to hold the information.
Of course. Storage and retrieval are an insurmountable problem but that doesn't deter the people here.
I would have thought there were more elementary particles than that in the visible universe but I'm just guessing. At least 20 to 30 more anyway. I'll work it out on the back of a cigarette packet in traditional, time-honoured manner.
Perhaps it's somewhere between 10^79 and 10^80.
Logically, a position is the entire initial chess position divided by a small factor to account for number of moves made. It's still a vast number of operations. Logically, you can't calculate any one position without "solving" most of chess.
tygxc doesn't even understand that and unfortunately, others haven't been clear enough, so that onlookers like Mike_Kalish, who says he tries to follow without much understanding, don't even know who's "winning".
It's been won about 10^17 times: hence Peruvian jungles.
It does seem that anyone not understanding this is pretty stupid.
So do you believe, as your statements seems to indicate, that anyone who doesn't understand this debate is stupid?
The visible universe, from Earth out to the furthest known galaxies, only contains about 10^78 elementary particles...
... that's around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 particles...
... which is far too few to keep track of the moves of all possible chess games. Even if only a single electron were to be used to record each move (somehow?) it would still require at least 10^42 times more storage than that to hold the information.
Of course. Storage and retrieval are an insurmountable problem but that doesn't deter the people here.
I would have thought there were more elementary particles than that in the visible universe but I'm just guessing. At least 20 to 30 more anyway. I'll work it out on the back of a cigarette packet in traditional, time-honoured manner.
how tf old are you? it says you joined in 2014. i didn't even know this was there around that time.
I joined in either 2007 or 2008 I think. It was quite small then compared with this. 71. I closed my account for a few years for family reasons and reopened.
Logically, a position is the entire initial chess position divided by a small factor to account for number of moves made. It's still a vast number of operations. Logically, you can't calculate any one position without "solving" most of chess.
tygxc doesn't even understand that and unfortunately, others haven't been clear enough, so that onlookers like Mike_Kalish, who says he tries to follow without much understanding, don't even know who's "winning".
It's been won about 10^17 times: hence Peruvian jungles.
It does seem that anyone not understanding this is pretty stupid.
So do you believe, as your statements seems to indicate, that anyone who doesn't understand this debate is stupid?
The visible universe, from Earth out to the furthest known galaxies, only contains about 10^78 elementary particles...
... that's around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 particles...
... which is far too few to keep track of the moves of all possible chess games. Even if only a single electron were to be used to record each move (somehow?) it would still require at least 10^42 times more storage than that to hold the information.
I think you might need to count them again, but apart from that, the number of arrangements and states of those particles is probably more germane.
Guys stop with this forum already
This may come as a surprise, but you are under no obligation to read every post on the site. I absolve you of your obligation to open this thread ever again...go in peace.