“
“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.”
and there’s another inaccuracy
you assume perfect play from each node, whereas engines that already incorporate 10^9 nodes a second are hugely inaccurate.
“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.”
And that is another inaccuracy. A quote taken out of context.
@9053
It is even the title of the interview: 'GIVE FIVE YEARS - I WILL "CLOSE" CHESS!"'
@9055
Yes, in each position until the 7-men endgame table base there must be a black move.
@9051
"you assume perfect play from each node, whereas engines that already incorporate 10^9 nodes a second are hugely inaccurate" ++ No, I do not assume perfect play. For white I explore all reasonable alternatives, best first. For black I take the engine top 1 move. I do not worry if that is perfect or not. It will be perfect in 99,999 of 100,000 positions. It will be an error in 1 of 100,000 positions, but that will show as then no 7-men endgame table base draw will be reached.
@9052
"where are your accurate calculations" ++ Above @9042
@9050
"Which 10^17 positions?" ++ Those that show up during the solving process, all of them draws.
@9049
"here your calculations no longer become accurate"
++ It is accurate. Take move 1. 20 legal moves for white, each 20 legal responses for black. Gives 20*20 = 400. Weakly solving only calls for 1 response for black. Thus 20*1 = 20 = Sqrt (400).
At depth d moves with a choice between w moves per ply that do not transpose:
Strongly solving w^(2d), weakly solving w^d = Sqrt (w^(2d))
...
It will be an error in 1 of 100,000 positions, but that will show as then no 7-men endgame table base draw will be reached.
...
Shouldn't that be a blunder in 1 of 13 nodes as checked against the tablebases in the examples I posted? Are you not a tad adrift there?
(I say "nodes" rather than "positions". You can't talk about blunders in positions with your definition of position, because under FIDE competition rules the same move may be a blunder or perfect in one and the same of your "positions" as I demonstrated in #9018. You're confusing basic rules positions, as calculated by Tromp, with competition rules nodes, as in quoted nodes per second.)
Yep
“For white I explore all reasonable alternatives, best first. ”
then it isn’t weakly solving. By definition weakly solving must cover all alternatives.
it doesn’t matter the statistical likelihood that there is an error there . This is a proof, not a heuristic
“GIVE FIVE YEARS - I WILL "CLOSE" CHESS“exactly. That’s more evidence that it was taken out of context.
Tygxc you don’t actually know what a node per second is. That’s a measure of how many chess positions are used to calculate A SINGLE MOVE. A node isn’t a calculated response to that position.
Tygxc I recommend this article
https://chessify.me/blog/nps-what-are-the-nodes-per-second-in-chess-engine-analysis
and havigg bc some reading comprehension
Imagine a chess position of X paradigms.
Now, a chess computer rated 3000 solves that position. All well and good.
Could another computer rated a zillion solve that position better than Rybka?
No, because not even chess computer zillion could solve the Ruy Lopez better than a sad FIDE master could.
the point is, there's chess positions with exact solutions. Either e4, or d4, or c4, etc.
nothing in the world can change that.
So if you are talking about chess as a competitive sport, then chess has already been solved by kasparov, heck, by capablanca.
If you are talking chess as a meaningless sequence of algorithms, where solving chess equates not to logical solutions of positional and tactical prowess, but as 'how many chess positions could ensure from this one?'' type of solutions, then, the solutions are infinite.
So can chess be solved? If it is as a competitive sport where one side must, win, then it has already been solved. Every possible BEST move in chess has been deduced long ago.
If chess is a meaningless set of moves, with no goal in sight, then sure, chess will never be solved.
"Chess computer zillion" will thrash a human player >99% of the time in the Ruy Lopez, so I am not sure how you think said player has solved it!
I agree that Chess will never be solved, because within the first six moves there are are around nine million possible moves. Now there are about thirty- fourty moves in typical game, so, technically, it might be possible to eventually predict all possible moves, but the number of possible moves you would have to know is outragous high. Also the amount of storage a computer would need would be huge.
“Which 10^17 positions?" ++ Those that show up during the solving process, all of them draw”
Yoh don’t make any room for that in your calculations . You are assuming computing power that doesn’t exist.
I think that was just the O.P. revisited.
i think even the orıgınal poster meant first 5 to 7 moves of ruy lopez.which we encounter when we google it
I see what you mean. The idea is that those moves are (likely) correct and can't be improved upon.
Which 10^17 positions?