All moves can be draw
by engines. Its fun for sake of god lets have this one, pawns in there directions. Its just fun, so why not let try it You know how many possible combinations will be possible after pawn can move in three direction, unlimited, can be calculated because its 2 much even for engines. Lets try it chess.com. I would like like to play this chess with pawns moves in 3 directions There is no calculated draw, because its not possible to calculate draw
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
@6412
"He asked for an authoritative basis for your definition." ++ It is not even my definition.
It is the only meaningful, objective, and precise definition.
"Where do either of those gentlemen give a definition that matches yours?"
++ I quoted Dr. Hübner above on that.
Oct 20, 2022
0
#6244
Quoted him from where?
Even if decades ago one of thousands of GMs once used the terms "error" and "blunder" in a non-standard way (which I doubt - Hübner being German for one thing) it is obfuscating to do the same.
To an oracle, there are half point errors and full point errors. No active chess commentators distinguish half point mistakes from full point mistakes by using the words "error" and "blunder". All active chess commentators use these words in a different way.
Yes it will.
tygxc wrote:
@6407
"to have even inadequate reliability in selecting a subset of moves one of which needs to be optimal, you need to use a significant amount of computation time"
++ Yes, 17 seconds i.e. 17 billion positions suffice for a table base exact move to be among the 4 top engine moves with at most 1 error per 10^20 positions.
But haven't you just multiplied your five years projection by 17 billion or am I missing something? Obviously there's going to be some redundancy but even sifting through the results to determine what is redundant is significant computer time. It may well be that result could be stored in truncated form as nesting sets but there are millions of those.
I mean, I just thought of that and I'm not an expert so I don't know if there's a better way forward but you clearly also aren't an expert, or your expertise would be evident in your engagement with our criticisms when you show us exactly where all our criticisms are wrong. But there's no sign of that ... it's repetitive flat rebuttal only.
Oct 20, 2022
0
#6247
Optimissed wrote:
A "semi-strong" solution is not defined.>>
Of course not and that's a very strong indication that the theorists don't know what they're talking about. If that seems a bit strong, what am I supposed to think? That they're right and I'm wrong, even though their ideas don't take into account HOW solutions can be found?
The theorists are not talking about semi strong solutions, you are.
But you are not giving any sensible definition of the term, so neither the theorists nor anyone else, with the possible exception of yourself, knows what you are talking about. What you've said to date gives every indication that there are in fact no exceptions.
Oct 20, 2022
0
#6248
It is wise to use words after they have been defined rather than before.
Oct 20, 2022
0
#6249
chess will be solved as a game with multiple happy endings for white, if both play their best moves
Elroch wrote:
It is wise to use words after they have been defined rather than before.
No, it ghofkolianshtmarps, which isn't about wisdom at all.
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
A "semi-strong" solution is not defined.>>
Of course not and that's a very strong indication that the theorists don't know what they're talking about. If that seems a bit strong, what am I supposed to think? That they're right and I'm wrong, even though their ideas don't take into account HOW solutions can be found?
The theorists are not talking about semi strong solutions, you are.
But you are not giving any sensible definition of the term, so neither the theorists nor anyone else, with the possible exception of yourself, knows what you are talking about. What you've said to date gives every indication that there are in fact no exceptions.
I'm not confused ... you are and that's a norm around here. Incidentally, probably best to randomly criticise something written months ago in an attempt to cleverly win a pointless point.
@Elroch, do you know anything about Kialara bitcoin wallets?
Thanks. Was it good? I have half a boxful of 1950s early 60s scifi paperbacks somewhere or other. One day I might find them because I seem to be more interesting in reading than I have been for years. At the moment it's an extremely detailed "official" history of queen victoria, from about 1800, giving the background. Now she's 14 and William 4 is on the throne. It was a labour of years for the author and many helpers, librarians, keepers of official documents etc.
@6411
"So, an appeal to authority" ++ You yourself asked for "an authoritative basis for your definition"
"It is important when you want to communicate with people to use terminology that is not at odds with normal usage." ++ That is why I use the common terms 'error' and 'blunder' and not your 'half point error' and 'full point error' that nobody uses, but means the same.
"No-one accepts your suggestion." ++ It is not mine, it is GM Dr. Hübner's and he at least accepts it. It is the only logical, consistent and objective meaning of error and blunder.
"you do not understand the established meaning of solving a game. ++ I do, you do not.
I quote from peer-reviewed literature:
- Next to brute-force methods it is often beneficial to incorporate knowledge-based
methods in game-solving programs. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370201001527 - The checkers proof consisted of solving 19 three-move openings, leading to a determination
of the starting position’s value: a draw. Although there are roughly 300 three-move openings, more
than 100 are duplicates (move transpositions). The rest can be proven to be irrelevant by an
alpha-beta search.
https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~dprecup/courses/AI/Materials/checkers_is_solved.pdf - A Shannon C-type strategy program, VICTOR, is written for Connect-Four,
based on nine strategic rules http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~fernau/DSL0607/Masterthesis-Viergewinnt.pdf
"you don't respect what you are told."
++ Whenever I am told something that is wrong. Do you respect what I tell you?
- In weakly solving Chess it is not forbidden to think and use knowledge
- When the 4 most optimal white moves cannot win, then the 16 least optimal cannot win either.
- 1 g4?, 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Ba6?, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nd4?, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nxe5?, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Ng5?, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nh4? etc. lose for white and do not even try to win and thus are irrelevant in weakly solving Chess.
- 1 a4 cannot be more optimal that 1 d4 or 1 e4 and thus is irrelevant in weakly solving Chess
- 1 Nh3 cannot be more optimal than 1 Nf3 and thus is irrelevant in weakly solving Chess
Oct 21, 2022
0
#6257
tygxc wrote:
@6411
"So, an appeal to authority" ++ You yourself asked for "an authoritative basis for your definition"
If you could read, you'ld realise he asked for an authoritative basis for your definition, not his.
"It is important when you want to communicate with people to use terminology that is not at odds with normal usage." ++ That is why I use the common terms 'error' and 'blunder' and not your 'half point error' and 'full point error' that nobody uses, but means the same.
The terms error and blunder are indeed common, but when you use them you mean something different from common usage. That's the point of the posts here, here, here and here.
Where has anyone advocated the use of the terms "'half point error" or "'full point error"? Nobody uses those terms except when commenting on your own text, where you consistently use "error" to mean "blunder"?
That is the consequence of your Humpty Dumpty ("when I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean” ) approach to communication. Exactly what we are complaining about.
"No-one accepts your suggestion." ++ It is not mine, it is GM Dr. Hübner's and he at least accepts it. It is the only logical, consistent and objective meaning of error and blunder.
We've made it plain we don't believe you. That's why we asked you to show us where GM Dr. Hübner says what you attribute to him.
The posts here, here, here and here asked you for such evidence and you've been unable to provide any. I think you're just making it up again.
The second sentence is fatuous.
...
Doesn't matter what Hubner thinks. It's only evidence for an argument where there's a well-founded consensus. There will never be a consensus here ... at best it's Hubner's opinion. The arguments against {Queens off = endgame} are very strong. It's an opinion which various people hold and it's a very poor argument, for quite a few reasons. Just wrong.
tygxc wrote:
@6411
- 1 Nh3 cannot be more optimal than 1 Nf3 and thus is irrelevant in weakly solving Chess
I'm afraid that this kind of thinking cannot form a part of a deductive argument, because it's too assumptive. It's a likely reality but it isn't known. After all, 1. Nh3 forms part of a recognised opening system.
Oct 21, 2022
0
#6260
Optimissed wrote:
Thanks. Was it good?
It remains a good example of classic "young adult space fiction" (Worth remembering that when it was published in 1956, even low Earth orbit remained science fiction!). The central fantasy element of telepathy that falsifies relativistic physics is developed well enough to suspend disbelief. It was enjoyable to reread a book that I read over 40 years ago and only partially remembered.
@6403
"an authoritative basis for your definition"
++ GM Dr. Hübner and also GM Sveshnikov are authoritative in the field of chess analysis.
He asked for an authoritative basis for your definition.
Where do either of those gentlemen give a definition that matches yours?