and one word for you blue.. humblebrag. lol ..had to take it of my 
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Dec 19, 2022
0
#6683
Well, I ran it through Google translate, but I'm still no wiser.
Strangely it says, "and ne word for iu blue.. gumblebrag. lol ..gad that's it and off we are happy.png". Better run my virus checker.
Dec 19, 2022
0
#6684
Phew! Had it on "Ukrainian" instead of "Detect language". Still no wiser though; it thinks it's English.
Disagree
tygxc wrote:
@6776
"Show one fact that shows chess is a draw."
Here are 136 - 17 = 119 facts, 119 games of 2 years each, ICCF (grand)master + engine, i.e. 4 centuries of engine calculations
https://www.iccf.com/event?id=85042
There are many more such games. We have over 1000 ICCF WC finals games thus ending in draws and being perfect games with optimal play from both sides.
That is inductive evidence.
Deductive evidence is available as well.
It is a fact that a queen up is enough to win all other things being equal.
It is a fact that a pawn can queen.
It is thus a fact that a pawn up is enough to win all other things being equal.
It is a fact that 3 tempi in the initial position are worth 1 pawn.
Thus it is a fact that 1 tempo in the initial position is not enough to win.
Every more move dilutes the initial tempo up.
Chess is a draw.
thousands of math theorems have proved that theorems hold up until huge numbers appear, such as aleph numbers, the same numbers on scale of chess. Statistically evidence gets you no where in proofs, sorry. You are making no sense g,
obvious troll is obvious at this point
Dec 19, 2022
0
#6687
Sillver1 wrote:
I've tried in technicolour. I don't think in @tygxc's case it's the colour that's the problem.
avramtparra wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@6776
"Show one fact that shows chess is a draw."
Here are 136 - 17 = 119 facts, 119 games of 2 years each, ICCF (grand)master + engine, i.e. 4 centuries of engine calculations
https://www.iccf.com/event?id=85042
There are many more such games. We have over 1000 ICCF WC finals games thus ending in draws and being perfect games with optimal play from both sides.
That is inductive evidence.
Deductive evidence is available as well.
It is a fact that a queen up is enough to win all other things being equal.
It is a fact that a pawn can queen.
It is thus a fact that a pawn up is enough to win all other things being equal.
It is a fact that 3 tempi in the initial position are worth 1 pawn.
Thus it is a fact that 1 tempo in the initial position is not enough to win.
Every more move dilutes the initial tempo up.
Chess is a draw.
thousands of math theorems have proved that theorems hold up until huge numbers appear, such as aleph numbers, the same numbers on scale of chess. Statistically evidence gets you no where in proofs, sorry. You are making no sense g,
obvious troll is obvious at this point
At this point? I think two years more like. Troll is kinder than the alternative.
Mind you, we have no reason to assume that chess may not be a draw, with best play on both sides.
@6791
"ICCF WC games are not perfect games with perfect play for both sides."
++ Not all ICCF WC Finals games are perfect games with optimal play from both sides.
The decisive ICCF WC Finals games are not perfect games and contain 1 error,
usually the last move before resignation.
Not all drawn ICCF WC Finals games are perfect, but >99% of them are perfect games with optimal play from both sides. The remaining <1% contain 2 errors that undo each other.
"What device or chess program was used to created the perfect game with perfect play."
++ An ICCF (grand)master with engine and average 5 days per move.
"what device or chess program was used to prove they were perfect games with perfect play"
++ Statistics: fitting a Poisson distribution of errors / game to the ICCF WC Finals results.
"No chess program exist that can play perfect chess."
++ Agreed, but with more time per move it approaches it.
At 1 s / move: 88.2% of games perfect. At 1 min / move: 97.9% of games perfect.
"This thread would not exist as chess would be solved."
++ For all practical purpose chess is already ultra-weakly solved,
the game-theoretic value of the initial position being a draw.
Chess is already in part weakly solved. ICCF WC games show how to draw
against 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, and 1 Nf3, but not yet in all variations.
Also the teams of grandmasters and engines that helped prepare over the board human classical world championship matches have already weakly solved parts of chess.
Chess is already strongly solved for all 7-men positions and for some 8-men positions.
@6801
"The trick is ignoring most of the lines"
++ Schaeffer weakly solved Checkers with only 19 of the 300 tournament openings.
200 were irrelevant because of transpositions. 81 were pruned.
If he was allowed to prune, then weakly solving Chess may and should prune as well.
@6804
"you are just making up stats"
++ No, I fitted a Poisson distribution of the errors / game to the results of the ICCF WC Finals.
"You would need a perfect chess playing chess engine to check the game."
++ No, I do not, I use statistics to conclude that the ICCF WC Finals draws are > 99% certain to be perfect games with 0 errors.
"Stockfish the strongest chess playing chess engine we have.
Is not designed to play perfect chess as a type B Shannon chess engine."
++ It is not designed to do so, but can be used to do so given sufficient time.
If it would calculate 10^44 positions, then it would strongly solve chess, i.e. a 32-men table base, but that would take too much time and storage.
If it calculates 10^17 relevant positions, then it weakly solves chess. That can be done in 5 years.
"Even given infinite time on the world fastest computer." ++ Infinite time solves a finite game.
"Stockfish would not, and could not play perfect chess."
++ That is not necessary. It is enough that the table base optimal move is among the w top moves (e.g. w = 4) of the engine with less than 1 error in 10^17 positions.
"looking deeper then any human chess player"
++ Calculating until the 7-men endgame table base is the deepest that can be looked.
"human players can outthink stockfish"
++ Yes, in ICCF humans + engines play stronger than Stockfish alone.
^^ Proving he isn't a spammer.
Dec 20, 2022
0
#6695
tygxc wrote:
"Even given infinite time on the world fastest computer." ++ Infinite time solves a finite game.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Dec 20, 2022
0
#6696
This possibility has been discussed here. I (possibly overconfidently) tried to sketch how it could be done. The basic idea is to do something like a tablebase construction but all in parallel with superimposed states. Wild! You need quite a lot of entangled qubits that can be manipulated a large number of times without any harm done by noise.
Incidentally, I understand that since thermal noise is such a problem to quantum computing, quantum error correction is key to such ambitious things ever being possible.
Dec 20, 2022
0
#6697
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@6791
"ICCF WC games are not perfect games with perfect play for both sides."
++ Not all ICCF WC Finals games are perfect games with optimal play from both sides.
The decisive ICCF WC Finals games are not perfect games and contain 1 error,
usually the last move before resignation.
Not all drawn ICCF WC Finals games are perfect, but >99% of them are perfect games with optimal play from both sides. The remaining <1% contain 2 errors that undo each other.
"What device or chess program was used to created the perfect game with perfect play."
++ An ICCF (grand)master with engine and average 5 days per move.
"what device or chess program was used to prove they were perfect games with perfect play"
++ Statistics: fitting a Poisson distribution of errors / game to the ICCF WC Finals results.
"No chess program exist that can play perfect chess."
++ Agreed, but with more time per move it approaches it.
At 1 s / move: 88.2% of games perfect. At 1 min / move: 97.9% of games perfect.
"This thread would not exist as chess would be solved."
++ For all practical purpose chess is already ultra-weakly solved,
the game-theoretic value of the initial position being a draw.
Chess is already in part weakly solved. ICCF WC games show how to draw
against 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, and 1 Nf3, but not yet in all variations.
Also the teams of grandmasters and engines that helped prepare over the board human classical world championship matches have already weakly solved parts of chess.
Chess is already strongly solved for all 7-men positions and for some 8-men positions.
"Not all drawn ICCF WC Finals games are perfect, but >99% of them are perfect games with optimal play from both sides"
Again you are just making up stats. To know if a game was perfect. You would need a perfect chess playing chess engine to check the game.
But no perfect chess playing engine exist. Stockfish the strongest chess playing chess engine we have. Is not designed to play perfect chess as a type B Shannon chess engine. Even given infinite time on the world fastest computer. Stockfish would not, and could not play perfect chess.
Type B chess engine were designed to surpass human chess players. By looking a very few line of play, but looking deeper then any human chess player.
This works greats for surpassing human chess play. But falls painfully short in finding the best moves in a chess game.
This is why Stockfish in some positions is completely stupid, and human players can outthink stockfish.
This would not and could not happen to a chess engine that plays perfect chess.
stockfish couldn't play perfect chess consistently even on the best computer ever, but I can't imagine that all or even most of the moves that stockfish thinks up are going to be different then what a perfect chess engine would play.
Chess will be solved. I read someone where it said that given 1000+ years, computers can look at every possible move. That 1000+ years will come down as chess computers get better
Almost all of the legal positions possible make no sense, so 1000 years isn’t as far off as you think. You don’t need to solve for all possible lines, only those that make sense.
The difference, I think, is that it's pretty easy to prove if someone was assassinated. But not so easy to prove if chess is a draw or forced win, even if we witness that draw or forced win personally.
I think if a president gets assassinated it's usually assumed someone made a blunder.