There's probably little reason to believe the figure of 15%, which probably depends on the Big Bang being correct and other improbables or imponderables. Here's a picture of a spaceship landing in our living room a few minutes ago.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
As usual, it's rotated by 90 degrees. I'll post a pic of my wife I just took, to see if she's standing on her head. I've no idea why they don't sort out all the glitches here. Maybe they don't WANT it to work properly.
I don't believe it.
I know. It's a fairly new mobile phone but I have a proper digital camera somewhere. My previous phone was better than this one.
This Is a Samsung. It has four lenses and it's useless. My previous phone had one lens and it took good pictures. I won't get another samsung mobile phone.
Oct 15, 2022
0
#6108
Optimissed wrote:
I know. It's a fairly new mobile phone but I have a proper digital camera somewhere. My previous phone was better than this one.
Can't be that bad. More likely DTs.
My previous one was also a samsung and that took great pics. I suppose I should use that as a phone but I do have a good digital camera.
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
I know. It's a fairly new mobile phone but I have a proper digital camera somewhere. My previous phone was better than this one.
Can't be that bad. More likely DTs.
It's a 3 year old Samsung, full of glitches. Takes so long to focus the dead rabbit gets up and walks away. The flash keeps switching itself off. Actually it's really hard to get it to focus and the colour quality can't be adjusted properly.
Optimissed wrote:
As usual, it's rotated by 90 degrees. I'll post a pic of my wife I just took, to see if she's standing on her head. I've no idea why they don't sort out all the glitches here. Maybe they don't WANT it to work properly.
I am confident that someone of your abilities will have this sorted in no time. Until then, you can rotate the photos in MS Paint before you upload them.
btickler wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
As usual, it's rotated by 90 degrees. I'll post a pic of my wife I just took, to see if she's standing on her head. I've no idea why they don't sort out all the glitches here. Maybe they don't WANT it to work properly.
I am confident that someone of your abilities will have this sorted in no time. Until then, you can rotate the photos in MS Paint before you upload them.
I experimented when it first happened but rotating them didn't seem to help. What seemed ro work was cropping them to get a border shape the algo recognises, because it doesn't seem to recognise images. I don't think it's worth bothering with too much unless you need your wife to be the right way up.
Oct 15, 2022
0
#6113
GQV1N wrote:
mikekalish wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
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.
Well, a basic chess tablebase has about 10^44 positions with an average of 40 moves. There is plenty of room in the Universe to store it (with an absurd amount of effort beyond the entire capabilities of all human civilisation).
It might be almost useless though because of the size (hence slowness). This tablebase describes the infinite number of possible basic chess games as all paths through the positions via the listed legal moves for each position, and tells you the optimal value of each position and each move at every stage of such a path.
Any species that reached the level of technological capability to construct such a tablebase would have much more worthwhile things to do with vast resources.
OK I'll experiment. This is me a year ago when I wasn't shaving. If it isn't the right way up, I'll rotate it.
Well why is that the right way up?
Oct 15, 2022
0
#6116
My Moto G60 has 3 lenses on the back and one on the front. I presume this used the one that has 108 megapixels, which is just a silly number and not very useful in this light.
Oct 15, 2022
0
#6118
Optimissed wrote:
OK I'll experiment. This is me a year ago when I wasn't shaving. If it isn't the right way up, I'll rotate it.
Ustinov on diet?
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 physicists posit that the "visible universe" accounts for only 15% of actual matter, making much more space for data storage theoretically available. This still makes the process highly impractical, which is why some here think that the solution awaits a quantum leap in data analysis.