@8752
"Sveshnikov was exaggerating"
++ Sveshnikov was right.
He was right to exaggerate. It was a great quote, reflecting how computers were transforming chess. But it wasn’t literal. Otherwise he wouldn’t have said that
@8751
"assumes pre existing knowledge of which positions to evaluate"
++ No, it does not assume any knowledge of which positions to evaluate.
It is just like Schaeffer did for Checkers. Each pawn move and each capture along the seeded line shrink the relevant search space and the stored boundary.
Then how come schaeffer didn’t evaluate the square root of positions?
@8751
"assumes pre existing knowledge of which positions to evaluate"
++ No, it does not assume any knowledge of which positions to evaluate.
It is just like Schaeffer did for Checkers. Each pawn move and each capture along the seeded line shrink the relevant search space and the stored boundary.
That’s argument from repetition.
You literally contradict yourself here. 10^17 isn’t the search space of a weak solution, it’s the total positions that make up the weak solution. 10^34 / 44 is the search space.
You also still haven’t addressed the fact that I have objectively proven that the strategy stealing method cannot work.
i eat glue
This is sort of what I was talking about with the idea of the chess engines themselves not necessarily being programmed correctly.
Some things are counterintuitive. 
@8759
"how come schaeffer didn’t evaluate the square root of positions?"
He evaluated 10^14 relevant positions of the 5*10^20 legal positions.
Checkers is no Chess.
A Checkers board is more crowded: 24 men on 32 squares as opposed to 32 men on 64 squares.
Checkers has only 2 kinds of men, Chess 6.
A Checkers board has more edge effects: 16 of 32 squares on the edge as opposed to 30 of 64.
Never is too long.
(and assumes things stay stagnant/progress at whatever current rates are thought possible in terms of computing...)
Never, as storage sits currently (or with any serious/reasonable predicted advances). There's not enough matter in our solar system to do the job. So unless you are going to invent FTL travel before you solve chess...
@8761
"How do you determine which move by white to do?"
++ At first sight all legal white moves and 1 black response.
On closer inspection some clearly wrong moves like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? need no inspection.
The idea is to take the top w white engine moves, e.g. w = 4.
As proven the table base exact move is among the top 4 engine moves when running 17 s on a 10^9 nodes/s engine with 1 error in 10^20 positions.
@87660
"10^34 / 44 is the search space"
++ How do you arrive at that?
It’s short hand for 10^34 (your claimed number) OR the established 10^44
@8761
"How do you determine which move by white to do?"
++ At first sight all legal white moves and 1 black response.
On closer inspection some clearly wrong moves like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? need no inspection.
The idea is to take the top w white engine moves, e.g. w = 4.
As proven the table base exact move is among the top 4 engine moves when running 17 s on a 10^9 nodes/s engine with 1 error in 10^20 positions.
Wdym “as proven”
you LITERALLY ASSUMED A FALSE ERROR DISTRIBUTION
also, for that 17s running, it would take over a million years to calculate 10^17 positions.
your nodes/sec is what is required to calculate a position with that accuracy every 17 seconds
If you are running 17s then BY DEFINITION it would take
@8761
"How do you determine which move by white to do?"
++ At first sight all legal white moves and 1 black response.
On closer inspection some clearly wrong moves like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? need no inspection.
The idea is to take the top w white engine moves, e.g. w = 4.
As proven the table base exact move is among the top 4 engine moves when running 17 s on a 10^9 nodes/s engine with 1 error in 10^20 positions.
Your 10^17 assumes w= 1. In fact, if w = 4, you would have to calculate at least 10^29 positions (assume game length of 40 moves.
@8768
"It’s short hand for 10^34 (your claimed number) OR the established 10^44"
++ No. the 10^44 or 10^38 or 10^34 is the total number of positions: the outer boundary in Schaeffer's figure number of positions (logarithmic).
ICCF WC draws can serve as seeded lines.
The stored boundary and the relevant search space shrink with each pawn move and each capture. For example after 1 e4 e5 all positions with a black pawn on e7 are no longer reachable.
@8769
"Your 10^17 assumes w= 1"
++ No not at all. E.g w = 4. w is the number of white moves that do not transpose.
If we look at all white moves and all black moves then N = w^(2d).
If we look at all white moves and 1 black response then w^d = Sqrt (N)
Ofc the initial search space is 10^3/4 4, that’s the collection of path trees for the game of chess. That’s how it is by definition.
“If we look at all white moves and 1 black response then w^d = Sqrt (N)”
But you still haven’t addresssed how you find that black move. You claim that it’s within the top 4 engine moves. That means nothing.
@8769
"if w = 4, you would have to calculate at least 10^29 positions (assume game length of 40 moves"
4^40 = 10^24.
4^80 = 10^48.
This proves that the 4 or the 40 are too high.
There can be no more positions than there are legal positions.
@8773
"But you still haven’t addresssed how you find that black move."
++ For black take the top 1 engine move. For white consider the top 4 engine moves.
For black do not worry if the move is exact or not: once the 7-men endgame table base draw is reached, that retrospectively validates all black moves.
For white the concern is that the table base exact move must be among the top w engine moves considered.
For w = 4, 10^19 nodes/s, 17 s/move the table base exact move is among the top 4 engine moves with 1 error in 10^20 positions, i.e. no error for 10^17 relevant positions.
@8752
"Sveshnikov was exaggerating"
++ Sveshnikov was right.