Tygxc are you also just ignoring all of the articles I sent explaining how scientific proof is a lie and completely different than a math proof?
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Feb 17, 2023
0
#6623
MARattigan wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Again, there are topics where this distinction is crucial (not just strong solution of chess), but a small amount of attention to efficiency in seeking a weak solution of chess (what we almost all agree is this central topic of this forum, with an accepted standard definition) means that the distinction does not matter - the possibility of repetition getting in the way of a winning line only appears when you have taken an unnecessarily long route to the solution.
I agree that if you actually intend to weakly solve competition rules chess using a forward search that the repetitions can be eliminated, but not I think using an unmodified version of Stockfish to do the basic work (as @tygxc plans to do in his non solution). You still wouldn't get anywhere of course, not even with seven maids with 7 mops. And you can't get away with using only ply count 0 positions, naturally.
I would not object to using Stockfish for finding candidate moves. Beyond that, it has no purpose.
Feb 17, 2023
0
#6624
Optimissed wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
Tygxc are you also just ignoring all of the articles I sent explaining how scientific proof is a lie and completely different than a math proof?
Can't really blame him since you don't know what you're talking about. Of course they are different things. One is deduction only and the other a combination of deduction and what is called induction, or the idea of drawing a generality from "anecdotal evidence", as all accounts of observational evidence, however accurate, are sometimes referred to online.
The problem is your lack of understanding of scientific proof.
That isn’t what proof by induction is:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction
how about you go ask your son if the articles I sent were wrong
3harath wrote:
Chess is a game of immense complexity, with an enormous number of possible positions and moves. The total number of legal positions in chess is estimated to be around 10^43, and the number of possible games is even greater than that. This means that it is virtually impossible to solve chess in the sense of determining the optimal move in every possible position, even with the most powerful computers. While it is true that chess engines and AI have achieved superhuman levels of play, there is still a vast space of unexplored possibilities, and new opening variations and tactics are constantly being discovered. In addition, the human element of the game means that even the most sophisticated computer programs are not infallible, and can still make mistakes or be outplayed by skilled human opponents. Moreover, the goal of "solving" chess is not necessarily desirable or even meaningful. Part of the beauty of the game lies in its open-endedness and the fact that there is always room for creativity and improvisation. If chess were to be "solved," it would lose much of its appeal as a dynamic and evolving art form. In short, while chess may continue to evolve and be studied for centuries to come, it is unlikely to ever be fully "solved" in the sense of exhausting all of its possibilities and nuances.
Turns out that if you make a set of arbitrary assumptions, you can simply decide that 10^43 becomes 10^37 eliminating 999,999 out of every 1 million positions, and then take the square root of *that* (you know, just because, it has been done before for some other problem and worked) and multiply by 10 and the number becomes 10^17, then you apportion those positions to cloud computing with fuzzily defined "nodes" that do not correspond to positions one to one, add 3 GM lab assistants that are more accurate than the best chess engines, and the answer to chess is only 5 years away...*if* you put up $3 million dollars and follow Tygxc's method absolutely correctly 
.
I know, hard to believe it is that simple and logical.
Optimissed wrote:
elroch has 147393 posts
Elroch >10,000 posts/year
Tygxc >5,000 posts/year
Optimissed >2,865 posts/year
Btickler >1,675 posts/year
From this, we can clearly deduce the following...
1. Elroch is twice the scientist and mathematician that Tygxc is
2. Optimissed trolls 1.7x as often as I post
@9021
"The total number of legal positions in chess is estimated to be around 10^43"
++ 10^44 positions are legal,
and 10^38 if we restrict promotion to either a queen, or a previously captured piece.
"the number of possible games is even greater" ++ Between 10^29241 and 10^34082
"to solve chess in the sense of determining the optimal move in every possible position"
++ That would be strongly solving Chess to a 32-men table base, beyond present technology.
However, weakly solving Chess: proving black has at least one path to a draw against all white opposition is doable with 3 cloud engines of 10^9 nodes/s piloted by humans during 5 years.
"If chess were to be solved, it would lose much of its appeal" ++ Yes, like Checkers.
@9024
"not object to using Stockfish for finding candidate moves. Beyond that, it has no purpose."
++ Stockfish serves 3 purposes:
- generate white candidate moves
- rank white candidate moves for the best first heuristic
- find the single black response to tentatively reach a 7-men endgame table base draw
Feb 18, 2023
0
#6630
“However, weakly solving Chess: proving black has at least one path to a draw against all white opposition is doable with 3 cloud engines of 10^9 nodes/s piloted by humans during 5 years”.
You keep claiming this. But you have never provided any accurate calculations for this.
Feb 18, 2023
0
#6631
Optimissed it’s rich to here you claiming I don’t understand something while literally also claiming the misconceptions listed.
Feb 18, 2023
0
#6632
Tygxc the definition of a node you gave is different from the definition you use in your ‘calculations’
@9036
"the definition of a node you gave is different from the definition you use in your calculations"
++ No, in the calculations I use the definition I provided as in the link I gave.
Feb 18, 2023
0
#6634
We already have computers playing chess and they play with 99% accuracy for ~1 min/ move given 10^9 nodes/sec. You saw that statistic and calculated 10^17 /10^9 but that’s objectively incorrect. It doesn’t calculate 10^9 moves / sec it uses 10^9 notes/sec to make a SINGLE move.
Feb 18, 2023
0
#6635
“No, in the calculations I use the definition I provided as in the link I gave”
You divided 10^17 by 10^9.
by definition, you aren’t calculating nodes.
Feb 18, 2023
0
#6636
Tygxc why do you think it took 10^14 positions to weakly solve checkers? Why wasn’t it the square root of 10^20?
Feb 18, 2023
0
#6637
You still also haven’t looked at the articles I gave that explicitly explained how it is a misconception that science proofs exist, or that they are in any way similar to how math is done
@9034
"But you have never provided any accurate calculations for this."
++ I did, but I do it again on your request.
Chess has 10^44 legal positions, but the vast majority of these has 3 or more rooks or bishops on each side as in the 3 random samples. Such positions cannot result from optimal play by both sides. The only reason to underpromote to a rook or a bishop is to avoid stalemate, so it only makes sense for a side that already is winning.
Thus 10^37 legal positions with promotions restricted to pieces previously captured is a better starting point to estimate.
It is a bit too strict: positions with 3 or 4 queens happen in perfect games with optimal play from both sides, as we know from ICCF WC Finals draws.
Multiply by 10 to include such positions: 10^37 * 10 = 10^38.
A random sample of 10,000 positions as counted by Gourion shows none can result from optimal play by both sides either. That leaves 10^38 / 10^4 = 10^34 positions.
Instead of all black responses weakly solving Chess only calls for 1 black way to draw against all white opposition
That leaves Sqrt (10^34) = 10^17 positions.
3 cloud engines of 10^9 nodes/s each calculate in 5 years
10^9 nodes/s/engine * 3 engines * 3600 s/h * 24 h * 365.25 d/a * 5 a = 4.7 * 10^17 nodes
Thus 3 cloud engines of 10^9 nodes/s can in 5 years weakly solve Chess.
That is also what GM Sveshnikov said:
Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess.
Feb 18, 2023
0
#6639
Chess is one of the most complex and challenging games in the world. With millions of possible positions and moves, it has been a longstanding question whether the game can ever be fully "solved" - that is, if every possible outcome of every game can be determined.
As of now, no computer program or human player has been able to solve chess completely. This means that it has not been determined what the outcome of every possible game would be. Nevertheless, there has been significant progress in developing algorithms and artificial intelligence techniques that have been able to defeat human champions and solve some variations of the game. One of the most famous examples is the 1997 match between the computer program Deep Blue and world champion Garry Kasparov, which ended with Deep Blue winning 3.5-2.5. More recently, in 2017, the program AlphaZero, developed by DeepMind, learned to play chess at an expert level after just four hours of self-play, and went on to defeat the then-best chess engine Stockfish in a 100-game match.
While these accomplishments are remarkable, they do not mean that chess is completely solved. In fact, it is unlikely that chess will ever be fully solved. The reason is that chess is an incredibly complex game, with an enormous number of possible positions and moves. Even the most advanced artificial intelligence techniques currently available are limited by their computational power and the complexity of the game.
That being said, it is possible that future advancements in artificial intelligence and computing power could lead to the complete solution of chess. However, even if this were to happen, it would not necessarily make the game any less interesting or enjoyable to play. The beauty of chess lies not in its solvability, but in its complexity and strategic depth. There are endless variations and possibilities in the game, which require a deep understanding of strategy and tactics to master. The challenge of playing against another human player, with all their unpredictable moves and unexpected strategies, is what makes chess such a fascinating and rewarding game.
In conclusion, the possibility of solving chess remains an open question, and it is uncertain whether this will ever be achieved. However, the continued progress in artificial intelligence and the development of new techniques and algorithms suggest that we may be getting closer to a complete solution. Regardless of whether chess is ever fully solved, the game will remain a fascinating and challenging test of strategic thinking and skill.
Tygxc you don’t have the right to claim that it isn’t a sufficiently strong tournament.