@6897
++ Weakly solved does not call for all black moves that do not lose. Only one is enough.
It might win though!
On the other hand that weak solution of Chess then does not need to handle Petrov, Sicilian, French, Caro-Kann, Pirc, Dutch, King's Indian Defense, Grünfeld Indian Defense, Nimzovich Indian Defense, Queen's Indian Defense, Queen's Gambit Accepted...
Seriously, no-one is going to buy this as any kind of a solution for chess. It isn't adding ANYTHING to what we already know or to chess theory. The entire, artificial idea of "weakly solving", "strongly solving" etc is complete nonsense because in practice, they overlap considerably.
In any case, the supposed definitions that are in use "ie weak solving is a strategy that .... etc" or "an algorithm that .... etc" is also nonsense, since in each case we're discussing series of concrete moves, which is very much NOT a strategy, except that in its simplest form, a viable strategy in chess is "any series of moves which does not contain any move or moves that lose by force".
So the supposed experts here place all their faith in other experts whose conceptions of the strategy of solving chess isn't just archaic but ludicrous. And these people, being called "games theorists", cannot do wrong because of their title, and everyone believes them, even though they obviously come from a bygone age and never thought well and properly on this subject in their entire lives.
Tygxc is pushing this rubbish on the pretext of educating others, tacitly supported by people who cannot see that the entire project is built on sand, because they're only intent on trying to get tygxc to recognise their own very limited objections.
Unless the foundations of "solving chess" are reassessed from ground up, there's no point at all in any of this twaddle. No group of scientists would dream of approaching an area of research without assessing and reassessing it. A reliance on the potentially outworn and useless ideas of others is an obvious and elementary mistake, which makes nonsense of this entire thread.
I understand the frustration (and I do not claim that what tygxc is saying is true) but do not dismiss the whole subject of solving games. This is not some made up concept with no use in the real world, this is a major part of game theory (which is a concrete mathematical field with everything any other field has), the concept of solving games is mathematically defined.
At the very best, "games theory" is one of those soft sciences, at least in its application to the theories and strategies of games. In my understanding, games theory wasn't developed to analyse games or the strategies of games, which is a rather simple subject. It is meant to be used to apply theory of games to real life, "serious" situations, which are not games at all. Most people here seem to have no conception that such is the case.
Although, there is a reason very few mathematicians study chess, because there is currently little to no advancements to be made. all the research has pretty much already been done, we know it cannot be solved, there are countless studies on that, and “chess research” is pretty much stuck.
I would say the opposite. Everything remains to be done. So far, chess bears no relationship to maths, because so far, absolutely zero progress has been made in representing chess mathematically. One mathematician whom I know and trust says that it cannot be done. By that, he probably means that it won't be done in his lifetime.
most research is not made on real games, but on theoretical mathematical games, which have clearer rules and are more useful to study, the few games that have been “solved” like checkers is just a proof of concept or a show off for a big company or university.
Most research will be done on simple games, which can actually be mathematically represented.
. The 10^44 number is the most solid estimate for unique legal positions , down from the previous 10^46 that was accepted before it. If you think it's all gibberish, load up the software yourself and run it, and collect the $250 dollar bounty for finding an issue with it. If you can't make heads or tales of GitHub or figure out how the number was derived, then...maybe not the right person to comment on the veracity of the data.
@6897
++ Weakly solved does not call for all black moves that do not lose. Only one is enough.
It might win though!
On the other hand that weak solution of Chess then does not need to handle Petrov, Sicilian, French, Caro-Kann, Pirc, Dutch, King's Indian Defense, Grünfeld Indian Defense, Nimzovich Indian Defense, Queen's Indian Defense, Queen's Gambit Accepted...
Seriously, no-one is going to buy this as any kind of a solution for chess. It isn't adding ANYTHING to what we already know or to chess theory. The entire, artificial idea of "weakly solving", "strongly solving" etc is complete nonsense because in practice, they overlap considerably.
In any case, the supposed definitions that are in use "ie weak solving is a strategy that .... etc" or "an algorithm that .... etc" is also nonsense, since in each case we're discussing series of concrete moves, which is very much NOT a strategy, except that in its simplest form, a viable strategy in chess is "any series of moves which does not contain any move or moves that lose by force".
So the supposed experts here place all their faith in other experts whose conceptions of the strategy of solving chess isn't just archaic but ludicrous. And these people, being called "games theorists", cannot do wrong because of their title, and everyone believes them, even though they obviously come from a bygone age and never thought well and properly on this subject in their entire lives.
Tygxc is pushing this rubbish on the pretext of educating others, tacitly supported by people who cannot see that the entire project is built on sand, because they're only intent on trying to get tygxc to recognise their own very limited objections.
Unless the foundations of "solving chess" are reassessed from ground up, there's no point at all in any of this twaddle. No group of scientists would dream of approaching an area of research without assessing and reassessing it. A reliance on the potentially outworn and useless ideas of others is an obvious and elementary mistake, which makes nonsense of this entire thread.
I understand the frustration (and I do not claim that what tygxc is saying is true) but do not dismiss the whole subject of solving games. This is not some made up concept with no use in the real world, this is a major part of game theory (which is a concrete mathematical field with everything any other field has), the concept of solving games is mathematically defined.
Although, there is a reason very few mathematicians study chess, because there is currently little to no advancements to be made. all the research has pretty much already been done, we know it cannot be solved, there are countless studies on that, and “chess research” is pretty much stuck.
most research is not made on real games, but on theoretical mathematical games, which have clearer rules and are more useful to study, the few games that have been “solved” like checkers is just a proof of concept or a show off for a big company or university.