An engine that can calculate to a tablebase AGAINST ALL DEFENSES can be known (rather than guessed) to be perfect.
Such an engine does not exist, nor will such an engine exist in the forseeable future.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
i know
@8925
I have looked at the KRPP vs. KRP endgame. It is not a draw, but a win, albeit with more than 50 moves without capture or pawn move. This position could be claimed as a table base win in ICCF. Table base win claims never happen in ICCF, as opposed to table base draw claims, that are frequent. So this position cannot arise from the initial position by optimal play from both sides. It is thus not relevant to weakly solving Chess: only drawn positions are relevant. Please come up with a drawn KRPP vs. KRP.
Stockfish plays it table base perfectly until it makes a mistake leading to a draw 25 Ke4?.
@8929
"An engine that can calculate to a tablebase AGAINST ALL DEFENSES can be known (rather than guessed) to be perfect. Such an engine does not exist"
++ Any existing engine can do that if given enough time.
Incorporating game knowledge is per van den Herik beneficial in speeding up the process.
It is not necessary to calculate 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? to a win for black in all lines, we know 2 Ba6? is no optimal play. We can also use logic. 1 Na3 cannot be better than 1 Nf3. So once a draw in all lines against 1 Nf3 is found it is trivial to do the same for 1 Na3.
1 a4 cannot be better than 1 e4 or 1 d4. So once a draw in all lines against 1 e4 and 1 d4 is found, it is trivial to do the same for 1 a4.
pit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finleypit finle
pit finley
------------------------------------------------------------
FINDING NEMO Transcript v1.0
Copyright 2003 Walt Disney Pictures, Pixar Animation Studios
------------------------------------------------------------
Transcribed by BaD_BURN
email : markgonzalez154@hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
| Okay, this is the work-in-progress FINDING NEMO film transcript. |
| Why is it 'work-in-progress' you might ask? Well for one, this |
| isn't a 100% accurate transcript: some words might be missing, |
| may not be right. Second, some lines may or may not have been |
| spoken by the right character. There are instances in the film |
| where a line is spoken but the character isn't on screen, which |
| makes things complicated. But I'd say this transcript is about |
| 98-99% accurate. Dialogue for each scene is seperated by a line |
| of equal signs (=). |
| |
| This transcript is open for corrections, additions if you have |
| any. What you CAN'T do, however, is to edit it and take credit |
| for it. Although I do not own the movie or it's screenplay, this |
| transcript was made with no intention of copyright infringement |
| and the like. Enjoy. And remember: 'Fish are friends, not food'. |
------------------------------------------------------------------
======================================================================================
MARLIN
Wow.
CORAL
Mmm.
MARLIN
Wow.
CORAL
Mmm-hmm.
MARLIN
Wow.
CORAL
Yes, Marlin. No, I see it. It's beautiful.
MARLIN
So, Coral, when you said you wanted an ocean view, you didn't think that we we're gonna
get the whole ocean, did you? Huh? [sighs] Oh yeah. A fish can breath out here. Did your
man deliver or did he deliver?
1
CORAL
My man delivered.
MARLIN
And it wasn't so easy.
CORAL
Because a lot of other clownfish had their eyes on this place.
MARLIN
You better believe they did--every single one of them.
CORAL
Mm-hmm. You did good. And the neighborhood is awesome.
MARLIN
So, you do like it, don't you?
CORAL
No, no. I do, I do. I really do like it. But Marlin, I know that the drop off is desirable
with the great schools and the amazing view and all, but do we really need so much space?
MARLIN
Coral, honey, these are our kids we're talking about. They deserve the best. Look, look,
look. They'll wake up, poke their little heads out and they'll see a whale! See, right by
their bedroom window.
CORAL
Shhh, you're gonna wake the kids.
MARLIN
Oh, right. Right.
CORAL
Aww, look. They're dreaming. We still have to name them.
MARLIN
You wanna name all of 'em, right now? All right, we'll name this half Marlin Jr. and then
this half Coral Jr. Okay, we're done.
CORAL
I like Nemo.
MARLIN
Nemo? Well, we'll name one Nemo but I'd like most of them to be Marlin Jr.
CORAL
Just think that in a couple of days, we're gonna be parents!
MARLIN
Yeah. What if they don't like me?
CORAL
Marlin.
MARLIN
No, really.
CORAL
There's over 400 eggs. Odds are, one of them is bound to like you.
CORAL
What?
MARLIN
You remember how we met?
CORAL
Well, I try not to.
MARLIN
Well, I remember. 'Excuse me, miss, can you check and see if there's a hook in my lip?'
CORAL
Marlin!
MARLIN
2
'Well, you gotta look a little closer because it's wiggling'.
CORAL
Get away!
MARLIN
Here he is. Cutie's here! Where did everybody go?
MARLIN
[gasps] Coral, get inside the house, Coral. No, Coral, don't. They'll be fine. Just get
inside, you, right now.
MARLIN
No!
MARLIN
Coral! Coral?
MARLIN
Coral? Oh!
MARLIN
Ohh. There, there, there. It's okay, daddy's here. Daddy's got you. I promise, I will
never let anything happen to you...Nemo.
======================================================================================
NEMO
First day of school! First day of school! Wake up, wake up! C'mon, first day of school!
MARLIN
I don't wanna go to school. Five more minutes.
NEMO
Not you, dad. Me!
MARLIN
Okay...huh?
NEMO
Get up, get up! It's time for school! It's time for school! It's time for school!
It's time for school! Oh boy! Oh boy!
MARLIN
All right, I'm up.
NEMO
Oh boy--whoa!
MARLIN
Nemo!
NEMO
First day of school!
MARLIN
[gasps] Nemo, don't move! Don't move! You'll never get out of there yourself. I'll do it.
All right, where's the break? You feel a break?
NEMO
No.
MARLIN
Sometimes you can't tell 'cause fluid is rushing to the area. Now, any rushing fluids?
NEMO
No.
MARLIN
Are you woozy?
NEMO
No.
MARLIN
How many stripes do I have?
3
NEMO
I'm fine.
MARLIN
Answer the stripe question!
NEMO
Three.
MARLIN
No! See, something's wrong with you. I have one, two, three--that's all I have? Oh,
you're okay. How's the lucky fin?
NEMO
Lucky.
MARLIN
Let's see.
MARLIN
Are you sure you wanna go to school this year? 'Cause there's no problem if you don't.
You can wait 5 or 6 years.
NEMO
Come on, dad. It's time for school.
MARLIN
Ah-ah-ah! Forgot to brush.
NEMO
Ohh...
MARLIN
Do you want this anemone to sting you?
NEMO
Yes.
MARLIN
Brush.
NEMO
Okay, I'm done.
MARLIN
You missed a spot.
NEMO
Where?
MARLIN
There. Ha ha! Right there. And here and here and here!
======================================================================================
MARLIN
All right, we're excited. First day of school, here we go. We're ready to learn to get
some knowledge. Now, what's the one thing we have to remember about the ocean?
NEMO
It's not safe.
MARLIN
That's my boy. So, first we check to see that the coast is clear. We go out and back in.
And then we go out, and back in. And then one more time--out and back in. And sometimes,
if you wanna do it four times--
NEMO
Dad..
MARLIN
All right. Come on, boy.
NEMO
Dad, maybe while I'm at school, I'll see a shark!
MARLIN
4
I highly doubt that.
NEMO
Have you ever met a shark?
MARLIN
No, and I don't plan to.
NEMO
How old are sea turtles?
MARLIN
Sea turtles? I don't know.
NEMO
Sandy Plankton from next door, he said that sea turtles, said that they live to be about
a hundred years old!
MARLIN
Well, you know what, if I ever meet a sea turtle, I'll ask him. After I'm done talking
to the shark, okay? Whoa, whoa, whoa! Hold on, hold on, wait to cross. Hold my fin,
hold my fin.
NEMO
Dad, you're not gonna freak out like you did at the petting zoo, are you?
MARLIN
Hey, that snail was about to charge. Hmm, I wonder where we're supposed to go.
FISH KIDS
Bye, mom!
FISH MOM
I'll pick you up after school.
CRAB KID
Come on, you guys. Stop it! Give it back!
MARLIN
Come on, we'll try over there.
MARLIN
Excuse me, is this where we meet his teacher?
BOB
Well, look who's out of the anemone.
MARLIN
Yes. Shocking, I know.
BOB
Marty, right?
MARLIN
Marlin.
BOB
Bob.
TED
Ted.
BILL
Bill. Hey, you're a clownfish. You're funny, right? Hey, tell us a joke.
BOB/TED
Yeah, yeah. Come on, give us a funny one.
MARLIN
Well, actually, that's a common misconception. Clownfish are no funnier than any
other fish.
BILL
Aw, come on, clownie.
TED
Yeah, do something funny.
5
BOB
Yeah!
MARLIN
All right, I know one joke. Um, there's a mollusk, see? And he walks up to a sea, well he
doesn't walk up, he swims up. Well, actually the mollusk isn't moving. He's in one place
and then the sea cucumber, well they--I mixed up. There was a mollusk and a sea cucumber.
None of them were walking, so forget that I--
BOB
Sheldon! Get out of Mr. Johansenn's yard, now!
KIDS
Whoa!
MR. JOHANSSEN
All right, you kids! Ooh! Uuh, where'd you go? Where'd you go? Where, where'd you go?
NEMO
Dad, dad...can I go play too? Can I?
MARLIN
I would feel better if you go play over on the sponge beds.
MARLIN
That's where I would play
PEARL
What's wrong with his fin?
TAD
He looks funny!
SHELDON
Ow! Hey, what'd I do? What'd I do?
BOB
Be nice. It's his first time at school.
MARLIN
He was born with it, kids. We call it his lucky fin.
NEMO
Dad.
PEARL
See this tentacle? It's actually shorter than all my other tentacles but you can't really
tell.Especially when I twirl them like this.
SHELDON
I'm H2O-intolerant. [sneezes]
TAD
I'm obnoxious.
MR. RAY
[singing] Oooh, let's name the zones, the zones, the zones. Let's name the zones of the
open sea.
KIDS
Mr. Ray!
SHELDON
Come on, Nemo.
MARLIN
Whoa, you better stay with me.
MR. RAY
[singing]..mesopolagic, bathyal, abyssalpelagic. All the rest are too deep for you and
me to see.
MR. RAY
Huh, I wonder where my class has gone?
KIDS
6
We're under here!
MR. RAY
fsvbv
Feb 15, 2023
0
#6549
tygxc wrote:
@8925
"Relevant has to be relevant to something. To what?" ++ To weakly solving Chess.
Thank you. Not relevant to what you propose then.
"I usually try to win as Black" ++ 'weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition' Hence we look for a strategy for black to draw against all white opposition.
Assuming your big red telephone has decided the starting position is a draw then you should be looking for a strategy for White to draw against any play by Black as well. One of the flaws in the definition you quote, but it's immaterial because you don't intend to take any notice of the definition.
Those of us without a big red telephone would also consider a strategy for one side that wins with reasonable resources (including time available to move).
"[reinserted; By all means ]look at my data" ++ There is something wrong with your data.
Without looking at it. Typical of you to decide if the facts don't fit your theory then the facts are at fault.
"Here is a 269 move game Ivan Nikolic vs. Goran Arsovic (538 ply)"
++ I know that game. They repeated some positions twice. There were many forced moves. The game reaches a 7-men endgame table base draw on move 108. For the purpose of weakly solving Chess it ends there on move 108.
You said, "++ Chess is not 1000 ply deep. If there are w non-transposing choices per move, then all white moves and all black moves d moves deep lead to w^(2d) positions. There can be no more positions than there are legal positions, so w^(2d) < 10^44."
Not directly related to solving chess, but the rest of your response seems to be some stumbling steps toward explaining your error (it is rather a silly error to make). Progress?
ICCF WC Finals games lasted between 13 and 119 moves, 42 moves average, with standard deviation 16.
Which of course has no relevance to anything much.
For the purpose of weakly solving Chess all lines end around 119 moves and most before 42 moves.
'Fraid not. We seem to be going backwards again.
Feb 15, 2023
0
#6550
tygxc wrote:
@8925
I have looked at the KRPP vs. KRP endgame. It is not a draw, but a win, albeit with more than 50 moves without capture or pawn move.
That's a draw with the 50 move rule in force as I believe you yourself have pointed out more than once earlier in the thread.
This position could be claimed as a table base win in ICCF. Table base win claims never happen in ICCF, as opposed to table base draw claims, that are frequent. So this position cannot arise from the initial position by optimal play from both sides. It is thus not relevant to weakly solving Chess: only drawn positions are relevant.
Don't be ridiculous! You're using SF15. It wanders between win and draw every time it makes a half point blunder. It's conceivable it may be irrelevant to weakly solved chess (nobody knows) but not weakly solving chess using SF15 for forward searches (nor weakly not solving chess in that case).
Please come up with a drawn KRPP vs. KRP.
I did. If you want any more do them yourself.
Stockfish plays it table base perfectly until it makes a mistake leading to a draw 25 Ke4?.
Plays what tablebase perfectly? And what tablebase?
There are 11 games with 17 blunders altogether (compared to your supposed total expectation of .00861).
Naturally the moves between blunders will be perfect.
did i ask
Feb 15, 2023
0
#6552
Tygxc your Poisson distribution doesn’t match the data why do you still insist that there is evidence for it.
Feb 15, 2023
0
#6554
Requirements for a Poisson distribution (wiki):
“k is the number of times an event occurs in an interval and k can take values 0, 1, 2, ... .” -chess errors follow this.
“The occurrence of one event does not affect the probability that a second event will occur. That is, events occur independently.” - Chess DOES NOT FOLLOW THIS. errors are more likely to occur in volatile positions. Hence, if an error has occurred, it is more likely that a second or third error will happen than before. errors can take place multiple times in a game so by definition they are not independent.
“The average rate at which events occur is independent of any occurrences. For simplicity, this is usually assumed to be constant, but may in practice vary with time.” - chess does not follow this. Players can choose more volatile positions where more errors are likely to occur, or they can choose to play for a draw.
“Two events cannot occur at exactly the same instant; instead, at each very small sub-interval, either exactly one event occurs, or no event occurs.” - You have said yourself that chess doesn’t follow this.
all four need to be true for a Poisson distribution to have a CHANCE of applying. Chess only follows one.
Feb 15, 2023
0
#6556
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
Requirements for a Poisson distribution (wiki):
“k is the number of times an event occurs in an interval and k can take values 0, 1, 2, ... .” -chess errors follow this.
...
Do they though?
An interval is described as a measured part of some infinitely divisible measurable space (time intervals, volumes etc.) with lim(p/δ) as δ→0 being a fixed value λ, where δ is the measure of an interval and p is the probability of an event occurring in the interval, from which a Poisson distribution as the limit of a binomial distribution can be inferred.
What is @tygxc assuming as that space?
He is apparently regarding the chess game as an interval of fixed measure (!), because he postulates a Poisson distribution for blunders per game, but what measurable space are those intervals meant to be embedded in? (And how does he then get to blunders per ply without knowing the game lengths? Is a ply also meant to be an interval and, if so, what would half a ply be?)
He doesn't say.
What Wiki is describing is actually the requirements for a Poisson process rather than a Poisson distribution. Maybe he's postulating a Poisson distribution for blunders per game without assuming a Poisson process, but he doesn't say why it should be plausible (and obviously it doesn't work),
It's been solved
Feb 15, 2023
0
#6558
MARattigan wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
Requirements for a Poisson distribution (wiki):
“k is the number of times an event occurs in an interval and k can take values 0, 1, 2, ... .” -chess errors follow this.
...
Do they though?
An interval is described as a measured part of some infinitely divisible measurable space (time intervals, volumes etc.) with lim(p/δ) as δ→0 being a fixed value λ, where δ is the measure of an interval and p is the probability of an event occurring in the interval, from which a Poisson distribution as the limit of a binomial distribution can be inferred.
What is @tygxc assuming as that space?
He is apparently regarding the chess game as an interval of fixed measure (!), because he postulates a Poisson distribution for blunders per game, but what measurable space are those intervals meant to be embedded in? (And how does he then get to blunders per ply without knowing the game lengths? Is a ply also meant to be an interval and, if so, what would half a ply be?)
He doesn't say.
What Wiki is describing is actually the requirements for a Poisson process rather than a Poisson distribution. Maybe he's postulating a Poisson distribution for blunders per game without assuming a Poisson process, but he doesn't say why it should be plausible (and obviously it doesn't work),
thats true. calculations wise it comes down to almost the same thing, but you are right in that there is a distinction to be made.
Elroch wrote:
It's worth remembering that it would have been just as easy to believe engines were near perfect when they were a few hundred points weaker. i.e. very weak.
Likewise world championship matches had a lot of draws when the players were about 800 points weaker than a top engine now. It did not mean they were perfect: it meant they were not good enough to obliterate the opponent almost 100% of the time.
The imminent draw death of chess has been an ongoing concern since Steinitz 
...every generation thinks they have exhausted chess and reached the pinnacle of understanding. Engines just extend this trend into waters human players will not even understand soon. I have already seen Carlsen say in an interview that he could not fathom a particular engine line in any way...it's only a matter of time before human players will cease to understand engine play even with perfect hindsight and seeing the eval numbers.
@8926
"it would have been just as easy to believe engines were near perfect when they were a few hundred points weaker. i.e. very weak." ++ For the same time/move they erred more than present ones and future ones will err less. To weakly solve Chess it is not necessary to have a perfect engine, it only has to get enough time to calculate until the 7-men endgame table base.
A weak engine can also weakly solve Chess, but it will take more time.
"world championship matches had a lot of draws" ++ Matches have different dynamics from tournaments. In a match only 2 entities compete. One strategy e.g. in Karpov - Kasparov was to physically wear down the opponent with many consecutive draws. Another strategy in e.g. Spassky - Fischer was to deliberately play subpar openings to dodge preparation. Tournaments provide a better measure as more entities compete and more games are produced for statistics.
In Zürich 1953 there were more decisive games than in e.g. Madrid Candidates'.
That reflects the lower error rate now.