tygxc wrote:
@8846
Typically for you not understanding that time period does not matter.
OK, now I understand. That's how you can offer to solve chess.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
@8851
Facts and figures please instead of accusations and ridicule.
So far all so called 'refutations' run along the lines of
did not read - did not understand the proof - not proven - not true.
MARattigan wrote:
+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE
im just bettter
Fr
+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE
+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE+like+a+king+who%27s+on+a+budget&oq=eat+lik&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j0i512j69i57j0i512l2j46i512j0i512j46i512j0i512.3456j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3f5cbcdb,vid:GgLboRmN1WE
Feb 13, 2023
0
#6489
tygxc wrote:
@8851
Facts and figures please instead of accusations and ridicule.
So far all so called 'refutations' run along the lines of
did not read - did not understand the proof - not proven - not true.
How are you doing with that Poisson distribution?
(If you don't want ridicule you could try not being ridiculous.)
Crazy
Feb 13, 2023
0
#6492
tygxc you also havent addressed the fact that you dont define what a node is correctly.
at 17s/move it would take 50 million years ASSUMING PERFECT PLAY WHICH WOULD NOT HAPPEN
Feb 13, 2023
0
#6493
tygxc wrote:
@8845
I am the only one using no rhetoric, only science and logic, only facts and figures.
Nothing has been refuted so far.
Nor has anything been undisputedly established. An assumption based on examples of admittedly flawed human or machine understanding of the game cannot form a solid basis for a proof.
Feb 13, 2023
0
#6495
Optimissed wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@8845
I am the only one using no rhetoric, only science and logic, only facts and figures.
Nothing has been refuted so far.
Nor has anything been undisputedly established. An assumption based on examples of admittedly flawed human or machine understanding of the game cannot form a solid basis for a proof.
Neither is anything a solid basis for proof. Even if it were solved, there isn't an expertise base. It couldn't be proven to be solved. Could be errors anywhere.
This conversation is ridiculous.
All that needs to be done to solve chess is to follow every possible line through every possible response until the established 7-piece is reached and shows that attempt to be a win for either side or a draw. Should any line of play for either side yield wins in all permutations, chess can be said to be "won", if no such line exists, chess is a "draw".
I am well aware that for practical purposes the difficulties posed by this approach are insurmountable today. To declare that they can NEVER be overcome--that no one will ever come up with a brilliant new approach in methodology or computer technology--would be a bit of hubris on our part.
From the point of view of anyone here coming up with a real solution, the conversation is ridiculous, but it seems that there are a lot of people who like to speculate on the subject.
Feb 13, 2023
0
#6496
Optimissed wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
All that needs to be done to solve chess is to follow every possible line through every possible response until the established 7-piece is reached and shows that attempt to be a win for either side or a draw. Should any line of play for either side yield wins in all permutations, chess can be said to be "won", if no such line exists, chess is a "draw".
I am well aware that for practical purposes the difficulties posed by this approach are insurmountable today. To declare that they can NEVER be overcome--that no one will ever come up with a brilliant new approach in methodology or computer technology--would be a bit of hubris on our part.
Do you believe that?
The only way is to develop an algorithm that can analyse a chess position in a different way .... holistically. We're nowhere near that and we will never achieve it. That's because, in the not-too-distant future, simple survival will take all our resources.
I do believe that some way forward may well be found. Whether your proposal is the only possible answer is doubtful. No one can know what presently unconsidered idea might someday prove fruitful.
I also hold a pessimistic view of the not-too-distant future, but the struggle for simple survival has taken most of the efforts of the great majority of mankind throughout history and progress has continued nonetheless.
Feb 13, 2023
0
#6497
Optimissed wrote:
It's a straight choice between the impossible strong solving, which is impossible because there is no way to store and retrieve such a colossal amount of info, and an algorithmic approach. There is nothing else and cannot be. It isn't unconsidered since I set out the basics for the algorithmic approach a few years ago. It does have to be revolutionary, you're right.
I'm glad that you have a positive take on the future for mankind.
I guess I just don't believe that your opinion to be the be-all and end-all consideration of the problem. There may well be someone thinking about this question right now that will see it in a whole new light and work out an approach that neither you nor anyone else has anticipated. Or such a person might be born in the next 500 years.
I believe that our present worldwide civilization may well collapse under the weight of massive population delocation necessitated by climate change. This doesn't mean that all progress in all areas of human thought will regress or petrify, even if most of its energy is spent on restoration for quite some time. Remember the OP's question says "NEVER".
Optimissed wrote:
Regarding solving chess, I can see the only way forward and I outlined it several years ago. It's things like that which show up the failings of the others. No problem for me because all I'm doing is giving my idea of how it must be approached. I went into it in some detail but only a couple of people were interested and they didn't stay around. It's about trying to perform a general analysis on patterns within chess. If that is possible then it can be solved. If not then not.
It goes without saying that there's a 3rd option of an algorithmic breakthrough that culls enough for brute force to become feasible but cannot solve chess alone (ergo, a hybrid solution)...except by you, I guess 
.
@8844
"to solve chess is to follow every possible line through every possible response until the established 7-piece"
++ This is false. You keep repeating it. "every possible line through every possible response" means strongly solving Chess to a 32-men table base of all 10^44 legal positions and that is not feasible with present technology.
That leaves only weakly solving, as Schaeffer did for Checkers.
It is only necessary to look at every reasonable white move through 1 black response until a 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-folfd repetition.
For "irrelevant" read "@tygxc can't answer". For "no refutations seen" read "I have my telescope to my blind eye".