"'Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess.' - GM Sveshnikov"
yep, thats exactly what he said, and nowhere does that imply thats solving chess.
if you actually read the article, its about theory and strategy.
but of course, you wouldnt bother with those details.
your quote is so obscure and taken out of context that this forum is literally the top result for searching that quote.
its absolutely hysterical that you think that quote is about solving chess mathematically.
truly something out of fantasy.
need i remind you about how your own "5 year" calculation was actually off by a factor of 100 million?
@9686
"no proof given" ++ Two proofs given, if you cannot understand, then that is your problem.
"mathematicians and they all found the same flaws" ++ What mathematician, what flaw?
"i pointed out to you" ++ You pointed out nothing at all.
"theres no mention of any such proof in game theory journals"
++ I provided it here on this forum.
Why Elon musk belived that chess will be a fully solved puzzles, however it's been 10 years but still no progress in the solving this puzzles.....
""mathematicians and they all found the same flaws" ++ What mathematician, what flaw?"
you are being purposely ignorant, i mentioned several times that i brought it up to the mathematicians at my university. they actually chided me for wasting my time with someone as ignorant as yourself.
"no proof given" ++ Two proofs given, if you cannot understand, then that is your problem"
i understood it perfectly actually, unlike you, who constantly struggles to understand basic analogies, and cant see their own fallacies even when named in front of them
you falsely claimed a value for tempo and then acted like that value was "proof". when confronted about your lack of justifcation you just said "oh its common knowledge some GM's said this thing"
thats not justification lmfao.
you also falsely claimed a strategy stealing argument, despite the fact that numerous counter examples were brought to your attention. you had to falsely choose blacks moves, when a proof counters ANY of black's moves.
@9688
"'Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess.' - GM Sveshnikov"
"close" = weakly solve: bring all openings to technical endgames = bridge the gap between the initial position and the 7-men endgame table base.
"off by a factor of 100 million?"
++ No, weakly solving requires 10^17 positions and can indeed be done in 5 years.
Anyway, we now have perfect ICCF games: the ICCF (grand)masters did the job.
I see you are vainly repeating your quote taken out of context, because you dont actually have an argument.
""close" = weakly solve: bring all openings to technical endgames = bridge the gap between the initial position and the 7-men endgame table base."
according to you, and not according to anyone else on the planet. thats your own personal fantasy bud, fallaciously repeating it doesnt change it. you wont be able to find a single person to agree with that.
its funny, all you do is repeat the same fantasy. "oooh chess is a draw because these games are perfect, these games are perfect because chess is a draw, there is no flaw in this logic you guys just dont understand, im tygxc and even when told that mathematicians the world over are laughing at me, i know better than all of them"
"++ No, weakly solving requires 10^17 positions and can indeed be done in 5 years.
Anyway, we now have perfect ICCF games: the ICCF (grand)masters did the job."
you gave a calculation where computers would calculate positions at 99% accuracy at 100 million positions per second. the article you cited actually said 100 million nodes per second to calculate ONE POSITION at 99% accuracy. its funny, i understand your posts better than you do!!!
im willing to bet money you wont address this whatsoever.
at this point ive shared your "logic" to over 100 people, and not a SINGLE PERSON thinks you are making any sort of logical sense. what makes you think you are better than the mathematicians, the math majors, the comp sci majors, and all the other people?
answer.
answer, why do you think you know better than published mathematicians?
@9692
"i understood it perfectly actually" ++ Then you would understand that Chess is a draw and the 105 ICCF WC Finals draws are perfectly played.
"a value for tempo" ++ That has been established for over 100 years.
"numerous counter examples were brought to your attention"
++ No, not one. Present a tentative black win against the possible white moves 1 e4 and 1 d4, and I show how white can steal that strategy.
"a proof counters ANY of black's moves" ++ Present any of your tentative black winning sequences and I will show how white can steal it.
Anyway, I have proven chess is a draw, neither a white win, nor a black win.
none of this "herik and this GM guy agree with me" bull, you are disrespecting their work with your disgraceful misinterpretations of their comments. im showing the mathematicians your claims and "logic" verbatim.
@9692
"i understood it perfectly actually" ++ Then you would understand that Chess is a draw and the 105 ICCF WC Finals draws are perfectly played.
ah yes, because i dont agree with your fallacies, i must not understand what you are saying, of course you would have that fantasy.
you still arent answering my question.
""numerous counter examples were brought to your attention"
++ No, not one. Present a tentative black win against the possible white moves 1 e4 and 1 d4, and I show how white can steal that strategy."
any move that black moves cannot be strategy stolen. because by parity white cannot lose a tempo over black. you admitted it yourself.
and since you cannot prove that those moves are not a black win, you cannot claim that they arent black wins for your "proof".
fun fact, i showed this argument by myself to multiple math majors and one of the mathematicians, and they fully agreed with me.
why do all the mathematicians and math majors i talk to fully agree with me?
E4 E5 cannot be strategy stolen. you will say 1.e3 E5 e4 is a strategy steal, but you ASSUME that black moves e5, which is false. black doesnt have to play that. black is just fine responding 1.e3 e6.
I talked to a 13 year old, and completely unprompted they immediately pointed out this flaw in your logic. i didnt even need to show them what was wrong, you are just so completely fallacious that even little kids can easily point out your fallacies.
you still havent given your own mathematics education.
@9694
"according to you" ++ 'bring all openings to technical endgames', that is weakly solving Chess.
"chess is a draw because these games are perfect, these games are perfect because chess is a draw" ++ No. Chess is a draw and the 105 games must be perfect, because there is no other plausible explanation for 105 draws out of 105 games at top chess level.
I say the only plausible explanation for the 105 draws is:
0 error: 105 games
1 error: 0 games
2 errors: 0 games
3 errors: 0 games
4 errors: 0 games
Try to come up with any plausible explanation:
0 error: ... games
1 error: ... games
2 errors: ... games
3 errors: ... games
4 errors: ... games
"Chess is a draw and the 105 games must be perfect, because there is no other plausible explanation for 105 draws out of 105 games at top chess level."
"plausible" doesnt equal proof. and "top chess level" is a subjective claim.
ah yes a "proof" out of "plausible" and subjective claims.
this is why my professors laughed at you
@9704
"plausible doesnt equal proof"
++ Try to come up with a plausible error distribution that explains 105 draws in 105 games.
0 error: ... games
1 error: ... games
2 errors: ... games
3 errors: ... games
4 errors: ... games
You cannot and nobody can, and that is proof.
"top chess level is a subjective claim." ++ It is not subjective, it is objective.
The World Championship Finals of the International Correspondence Chess Federation is the strongest chess on our planet. There are 17 ICCF (grand)masters who qualified,
they use engines and play at 50 days per 10 moves.
'Weakly solved' is kind of an oxymoron.
There's an aspect of the computer project not discussed much yet.
The time taken to 'solve' all positions with 8 pieces on the board.
That's a key quantity.
Whatever time it took for the computers to evaluate all the positions including some of them as illegal or impossible ...
Adding even one piece - to solve for 9 pieces - looks kind of 'prohibitive'.
After that another and so on.
Here's why:
If there's 8 pieces on the board - then there's up to 56 squares for a ninth piece to be added to.
But eight kinds of pieces Q,R,B,N. White or black.
And two kinds of pawns black or white - on up to 48 squares.
That means the new upper bound of positions to be processed is a product of the old count of such and ((56x8) + (48x2)) In other words C x 544.
Say it took a year for 8 pieces.
That's 544 years for 9 pieces.
And over 25,000 years for ten pieces.
Extrapolating for 32 pieces and even after allowing for less squares for pieces to be added to - how about at least 30 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years to do the whole job? And that's just at the final stage ...
Estimated time of the Big Bang ... 'only' 13 billion years ago.
Estimated time the sun will engulf the earth ...
a 'measly' 7 billion years and change from now. Mars after that.
So if humanity wants to continue the tomfoolery of that project with a room full of supercomputers on interstellar spaceships ... with a whole lot of better things to do ... there's going to have to be some star-hopping.
@9707
"Weakly solved is kind of an oxymoron."
++ That is how it is called. That is what Schaeffer did for Checkers.
"The time taken to 'solve' all positions with 8 pieces on the board." ++ That is different. The 8-men endgame table base is being generated backwards from the 7-men endgame table base.
"Whatever time it took for the computers to evaluate all the positions including some of them as illegal or impossible" ++ The 7-men endgame table base contains illegal positions.
The computers did not evaluate, they traced from 6-men, traced from 5-men, traced from 4 men, traced from 3 men.
"Adding even one piece - to solve for 9 pieces - looks kind of 'prohibitive'." ++ For now yes.
But the point of weakly solving a game is to avoid having to deal with all legal positions.
"Extrapolating for 32 pieces"
++ That would be strongly solving chess and is beyond present technology.
@9684
'Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess.' - GM Sveshnikov