And a good move can't change the outcome positively, so an error is one that changes the game state negatively.
I'm mostly interested in the wording of the definition.
Game state = outcome with best play.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Jan 21, 2023
0
#7343
Optimissed wrote:
So the useful outcome of my preceding post is an efficient and correct definition of a good move in chess.
A good move is any move which does not change the game state. An error is one that changes the game state.
A perfect move is exactly what you say.
Perfect moves are not necessarily good moves in practical play with a practical understanding of good.
Black to play, ply count 0
The above position is a win for White under both basic and competition rules. Nothing that plays legal moves as Black can blunder unless you, playing White, make a blunder first.
Nevertheless you would not count all perfect responses as "good".
Try playing the position as White first against Stockfish and then against Syzygy.
Which would you say is making good moves?
That's why we don't want to use ill defined terms like "good" when talking about solving chess, because the discussion is only sensible if the terms are well defined. Also why using your own different meanings for terms that are well defined is unproductive.
Jan 21, 2023
0
#7344
Optimissed wrote:
And a good move can't change the outcome positively, so an error is one that changes the game state negatively.
I'm mostly interested in the wording of the definition.
Game state = outcome with best play.
Where did the definition come from? It doesn't specify the outcome of what.
I would say game state at any point in a game is the set of possible legal continuations (meaning that the same game state can be arrived at by different routes) and the outcome is the outcome of the game state is the outcome of continuations with perfect play (not necessarily just perfect moves).
You haven't given a definition of "best" play so that comes in the same category as "good" moves.
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
So the useful outcome of my preceding post is an efficient and correct definition of a good move in chess.
A good move is any move which does not change the game state. An error is one that changes the game state.
A perfect move is exactly what you say.
Perfect moves are not necessarily good moves in practical play with a practical understanding of good.
Black to play, ply count 0
The above position is a win for White under both basic and competition rules. Nothing that plays legal moves as Black can blunder unless you, playing White, make a blunder first.
Nevertheless you would not count all perfect responses as "good".
Try playing the position as White first against Stockfish and then against Syzygy.
Which would you say is making good moves?
That's why we don't want to use ill defined terms like "good" when talking about solving chess, because the discussion is only sensible if the terms are well defined. Also why using your own different meanings for terms that are well defined is unproductive.
In English, what you call a perfect move is a good move. A good move is anything that doesn't alter the game state. The game state is the game result with optimum play.
Maybe to you, a good move is better than a perfect move? 
The rationale is that there are two qualities of moves only .... good and bad. A good move doesn't alter the game state and a bad move is one that does. Anything else is subjective and may well reflect the tastes of the players.
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
And a good move can't change the outcome positively, so an error is one that changes the game state negatively.
I'm mostly interested in the wording of the definition.
Game state = outcome with best play.
Where did the definition come from? It doesn't specify the outcome of what.
I would say game state at any point in a game is the set of possible legal continuations (meaning that the same game state can be arrived at by different routes) and the outcome is the outcome of the game state is the outcome of continuations with perfect play (not necessarily just perfect moves).
You haven't given a definition of "best" play so that comes in the same category as "good" moves.
No, again, "best" is subjective. There can be no definition .... only maybe a description, again subjective.
<<Where did the definition come from? It doesn't specify the outcome of what.>>
Probably either the game outcome or the result of the exploding banana situation on Mars. I've given up with the crap that is inspiring so many others here to their best efforts at not understanding much so I've decided that if no-one else can think accurately, I'll redefine everything properly.
Jan 21, 2023
0
#7349
Optimissed wrote:
The rationale is that there are two qualities of moves only .... good and bad. A good move doesn't alter the game state and a bad move is one that does. Anything else is subjective and may well reflect the tastes of the players.
What you are saying is that by a "good" move you mean what we have defined as a "perfect" move. That's the purpose of the definitions. It's not just jargon designed to confuse @Optimissed,
If you use the terms that are already defined to denote the definiens it saves filling up the thread with pointless posts like the last few.
You still didn't say from where the definition of "game state" came.
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
The rationale is that there are two qualities of moves only .... good and bad. A good move doesn't alter the game state and a bad move is one that does. Anything else is subjective and may well reflect the tastes of the players.
What you are saying is that by a "good" move you mean what we have defined as a "perfect" move. That's the purpose of the definitions. It's not just jargon designed to confuse @Optimissed,
If you use the terms that are already defined to denote the definiens it saves filling up the thread with pointless posts like the last few.
No, it's what you mean by "perfect move", not me. It was never my idea to use the term "perfect move" for "good move". If you understand the English language you will understand that "good move" defines it correctly. It's therefore the better choice because it isn't pretentious. Terms like "strategy, perfect move etc" can be seen as pretentious and as part of the ethos of excluding those who don't like the specialised nomenclature.
The existing definitions are second rate jargon and are the reason for a general difficulty many have in understanding this subject. They are also a tool which some people use to dominate the discussion when they aren't actually much good at it. ty and others.
Jan 21, 2023
0
#7351
Try again.
In English does Syzygy make good moves in the example I posted?
It's no good making up your own meanings for terms that denote concepts that are already agreed on. If you do that then can be no sensible discussion.
How am I supposed to know, when you say, "Terms like "strategy, perfect move etc" can be seen as pretentious and as part of the ethos of excluding those who don't like the specialised nomenclature,", that you don't actually mean, "This canal is full of alligators, I wouldn't stand too close if I were you."?
My point is that the existing definitions ARE jargon but are also inaccurate and are used, as I've explained, by people who don't understand games strategy but who also wish to use the pretence of an incorrect application of games theory to pretend an intellectualism which cuts out others and claims ownership of the subject. I mean whoever came up with the bad definitions which I initially thought were a joke. After all, it's taken a long time to get to this stage where we're starting to gain more expertise. When people gain expertise, they should use it productively. In this case I know very well that the existing definitions are used by tygxc and others to aid their attempts at dominating this subject. tygxc himself is one of the main reasons why this discussion hasn't got anywhere. Yet people like yourself and Elroch keep engaging him, which gives him credibility with newcomers.
MARattigan wrote:
Try again.
In English does Syzygy make good moves in the example I posted?
It's no good making up your own meanings for terms that denote concepts that are already agreed on. If you do that then can be no sensible discussion.
How am I supposed to know, when you say, "Terms like "strategy, perfect move etc" can be seen as pretentious and as part of the ethos of excluding those who don't like the specialised nomenclature,", that you don't actually mean, "This canal is full of alligators, I wouldn't stand too close if I were you."?
They are only agreed on by people who wish to dominate the discussion but who cannot move the conversation forward in a productive way. That's you, Elroch and tygxc. You have no moral claim that others should copy your poor attempts. If any true Scotsman were present, they'd agree with my definitions and start using them. Yours would be out of date in two years.
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
So the useful outcome of my preceding post is an efficient and correct definition of a good move in chess.
A good move is any move which does not change the game state. An error is one that changes the game state.
A perfect move is exactly what you say.
Perfect moves are not necessarily good moves in practical play with a practical understanding of good.
Black to play, ply count 0
The above position is a win for White under both basic and competition rules. Nothing that plays legal moves as Black can blunder unless you, playing White, make a blunder first.
Nevertheless you would not count all perfect responses as "good".
Try playing the position as White first against Stockfish and then against Syzygy.
Which would you say is making good moves?
That's why we don't want to use ill defined terms like "good" when talking about solving chess, because the discussion is only sensible if the terms are well defined. Also why using your own different meanings for terms that are well defined is unproductive.
You're talking rubbish. You fail to understand that you're making a subjective call but also, you fail to understand the normal meaning of "good", in English, which means "sound", "ok" or "useful". It's "perfect" which carries the excess connotations which are not required here. In your enthusiasm to defend a status quo which doesn't work, you're got it the wrong way round. In particular, I intend to continue to use non-pretentious labels, and not the pretentious stuff which has been in use here. I've spent long enough having to translate the claptrap you talk into meaningful symbols. Now you can translate my much more productive and focussed definitions into your claptrap. Ultimately it will help your understanding, just as it will aid that of others to at least understand the terms I use.
Jan 21, 2023
0
#7355
Optimissed wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
The rationale is that there are two qualities of moves only .... good and bad. A good move doesn't alter the game state and a bad move is one that does. Anything else is subjective and may well reflect the tastes of the players.
What you are saying is that by a "good" move you mean what we have defined as a "perfect" move. That's the purpose of the definitions. It's not just jargon designed to confuse @Optimissed,
If you use the terms that are already defined to denote the definiens it saves filling up the thread with pointless posts like the last few.
No, it's what you mean by "perfect move", not me.
It's what I mean, what anybody studying game theory or mathematics means, what anybody with an interest in recreational mathenatics means, what anybody with a serious interest in discussing solving chess means, the vast majority of whom have never seen the thread, and, I would guess, what almost every contributor to the thread apart from yourself means.
It was never my idea to use the term "perfect move" for "good move". If you understand the English language you will understand that "good move" defines it correctly.
I understand English. I also understand what is required of a definition.
English has ambiguities. The term "good move" is ambiguous, so does not mean the same as "perfect move" with the usual definition of the latter. The phrase "good move" does not define it correctly.
It's therefore the better choice because it isn't pretentious. Terms like "strategy, perfect move etc" can be seen as pretentious and as part of the ethos of excluding those who don't like the specialised nomenclature.
You're the most pretentious poster on the thread, Why are you objecting on those grounds?
The use of exact definitions and specialised nomenclature excludes only those like yourself who are either incapable of understanding them or can't be bothered Those people are not going to make any useful contribution to the discussion anyway.
For the rest of us they're useful, indispensible even if the subject is to be discussed seriously.
The existing definitions are second rate jargon and are the reason for a general difficulty many have in understanding this subject.
There you seem to disagree with the academics who have spent years studying game theory. For my part, I prefer the second rate jargon to anything you have proposed to replace it. Mainly because it's workable and your suggestion of replacing it with ambiguities is not.
The reason for any difficulty that may exist is as I described in my preceding block of text,
They are also a tool which some people use to dominate the discussion when they aren't actually much good at it. ty and others.
Ty can't understand the definitions he posts himself. Most of them are also hopelessly ambiguous, but even if they're not he can interpret them to mean things they obviously don't.
I wouldn't say that ty has no understanding but he uses what understanding he does have so inappropriately, it's difficult to tell. His main theme is being a spam engine which tells newcomers that chess will be weakly solved in five years. Of course, he doesn't understand the difficulties involved; nor the amount of computing power that doing it properly would consume. But he is advocating a half-baked approach, which certainly wouldn't constitute a proper solution of chess, weak or otherwise. He doesn't understand the amount of fuzz around the edges of a weak solution, which necessitates exploring incorrect moves simply because they could be correct. That increases the necessary calculations by a massive amount, as I'm sure you know only too well, being involved in computing yourself. He also fails to understand that SF doesn't provide a properly functional algorithm and yet he hopes to use SF "under the guidance of three masters". His approach belongs firmly in the 1960s or 70s, when the ultimate achievement of computing was assumed to be only a matter of time. You've been attempting to educate him but all your attempts seem only to give him the pedestal he requires to spread his ideas further.
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
The rationale is that there are two qualities of moves only .... good and bad. A good move doesn't alter the game state and a bad move is one that does. Anything else is subjective and may well reflect the tastes of the players.
I understand English. I also understand what is required of a definition.
You clearly don't understand English as well as you suppose, and the same goes for what is required of a definition. Definitions are always understood in context and what I am proposing is far less ambiguous, more focussed and far more efficient. All you're advocating is the status quo. That's fine. It's your prerogative but I'm showing anybody who is interested that your status quo is unfocussed, confusing and inadequate.
English has ambiguities. The term "good move" is ambiguous, so does not mean the same as "perfect move" with the usual definition of the latter. The phrase "good move" does not define it correctly.
So is "perfect move", but you accept that as a jargon or a specialised phrase. Your observation is subjective and one-eyed.
You're the most pretentious poster on the thread, Why are you objecting on those grounds?
And I would say that I'm the least pretentious, certainly compared with some I could name.
The use of exact definitions and specialised nomenclature excludes only those like yourself who are either incapable of understanding them or can't be bothered Those people are not going to make any useful contribution to the discussion anyway.
Come on. I may be cleverer than you but you've had a career in computing. You wish to use any tactics to discredit others. I know what I'm saying is right and you discredit yourself completely by making all these fuzzy, subjective and personally motivated objections, instead of arguing, or trying to, in a straightforward manner. I don't think you're able to discuss anything for very long without being personal and wanting to defend your territory.
For the rest of us they're useful, indispensible even if the subject is to be discussed seriously.
Maybe they are if you don't have any real ability to rethink. But you're hardly capable of discussing anything seriously. I've never seen anyone who habitually brings in so many irrelevances. My talking about my mother-in-law for five hours pales in comparison with the crap you talk. No difference at all in kind between you and tygxc talking about Mr S's project all the time.
<<<The existing definitions are second rate jargon and are the reason for a general difficulty many have in understanding this subject.>>>
There you seem to disagree with the academics who have spent years studying game theory. For my part, I prefer the second rate jargon to anything you have proposed to replace it. Mainly because it's workable and your suggestion of replacing it with ambiguities is not.
Yes I do, don't I. I can still think but perhaps you can't? Of course, I can have no idea as to what your starting level was like.
Jan 21, 2023
0
#7358
Optimissed wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
The rationale is that there are two qualities of moves only .... good and bad. A good move doesn't alter the game state and a bad move is one that does. Anything else is subjective and may well reflect the tastes of the players.
...
<<<The existing definitions are second rate jargon and are the reason for a general difficulty many have in understanding this subject.>>>
There you seem to disagree with the academics who have spent years studying game theory. For my part, I prefer the second rate jargon to anything you have proposed to replace it. Mainly because it's workable and your suggestion of replacing it with ambiguities is not.
Yes I do, don't I. I can still think but perhaps you can't? Of course, I can have no idea as to what your starting level was like.
We haven't read about @Optimissed matching any of the impressive results in the field of chess that have emerged from game theorists in the previous decades.
Could that be because your own jargon is third rate, or your thinking perhaps?
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
The rationale is that there are two qualities of moves only .... good and bad. A good move doesn't alter the game state and a bad move is one that does. Anything else is subjective and may well reflect the tastes of the players.
I understand English. I also understand what is required of a definition.
You clearly don't understand English as well as you suppose, and the same goes for what is required of a definition. Definitions are always understood in context and what I am proposing is far less ambiguous, more focussed and far more efficient. All you're advocating is the status quo. That's fine. It's your prerogative but I'm showing anybody who is interested that your status quo is unfocussed, confusing and inadequate.
English has ambiguities. The term "good move" is ambiguous, so does not mean the same as "perfect move" with the usual definition of the latter. The phrase "good move" does not define it correctly.
So is "perfect move", but you accept that as a jargon or a specialised phrase. Your observation is subjective and one-eyed.
You're the most pretentious poster on the thread, Why are you objecting on those grounds?
And I would say that I'm the least pretentious, certainly compared with some I could name.
The use of exact definitions and specialised nomenclature excludes only those like yourself who are either incapable of understanding them or can't be bothered Those people are not going to make any useful contribution to the discussion anyway.
Come on. I may be cleverer than you but you've had a career in computing. You wish to use any tactics to discredit others. I know what I'm saying is right and you discredit yourself completely by making all these fuzzy, subjective and personally motivated objections, instead of arguing, or trying to, in a straightforward manner. I don't think you're able to discuss anything for very long without being personal and wanting to defend your territory.
For the rest of us they're useful, indispensible even if the subject is to be discussed seriously.
Maybe they are if you don't have any real ability to rethink. But you're hardly capable of discussing anything seriously. I've never seen anyone who habitually brings in so many irrelevances. My talking about my mother-in-law for five hours pales in comparison with the crap you talk. No difference at all in kind between you and tygxc talking about Mr S's project all the time.
<<<The existing definitions are second rate jargon and are the reason for a general difficulty many have in understanding this subject.>>>
There you seem to disagree with the academics who have spent years studying game theory. For my part, I prefer the second rate jargon to anything you have proposed to replace it. Mainly because it's workable and your suggestion of replacing it with ambiguities is not.
Yes I do, don't I. I can still think but perhaps you can't? Of course, I can have no idea as to what your starting level was like.
The are no good moves in a position. Only bad moves that changes the Balance of the Position.
No move can improve the position with perfect play. You can only make the position worst against perfect play.
And remember a move that wins slower, or loses faster in not a imperfect move. As it does not change the balance of the position.
Chess does not give extra credit for finding these types of moves.
But with a perfect solved solution of the game of chess. This information is nice to know, and is known.
In the context of solving chess, a good move is any move that doesn't alter the game state. It has nothing to do with anything else and MAR is incapable of thinking clearly and logically.
There are only good moves and bad moves. If a move doesn't alter the game state, then it cannot be a losing move. If it complicates the game, it may be to the taste of someone who doesn't want to give an opponent an easy game. So no subjective evaluations are relevant, which is why MAR is wrong, as well as being a troll.
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
The rationale is that there are two qualities of moves only .... good and bad. A good move doesn't alter the game state and a bad move is one that does. Anything else is subjective and may well reflect the tastes of the players.
I understand English. I also understand what is required of a definition.
You clearly don't understand English as well as you suppose, and the same goes for what is required of a definition. Definitions are always understood in context and what I am proposing is far less ambiguous, more focussed and far more efficient. All you're advocating is the status quo. That's fine. It's your prerogative but I'm showing anybody who is interested that your status quo is unfocussed, confusing and inadequate.
English has ambiguities. The term "good move" is ambiguous, so does not mean the same as "perfect move" with the usual definition of the latter. The phrase "good move" does not define it correctly.
So is "perfect move", but you accept that as a jargon or a specialised phrase. Your observation is subjective and one-eyed.
You're the most pretentious poster on the thread, Why are you objecting on those grounds?
And I would say that I'm the least pretentious, certainly compared with some I could name.
The use of exact definitions and specialised nomenclature excludes only those like yourself who are either incapable of understanding them or can't be bothered Those people are not going to make any useful contribution to the discussion anyway.
Come on. I may be cleverer than you but you've had a career in computing. You wish to use any tactics to discredit others. I know what I'm saying is right and you discredit yourself completely by making all these fuzzy, subjective and personally motivated objections, instead of arguing, or trying to, in a straightforward manner. I don't think you're able to discuss anything for very long without being personal and wanting to defend your territory.
For the rest of us they're useful, indispensible even if the subject is to be discussed seriously.
Maybe they are if you don't have any real ability to rethink. But you're hardly capable of discussing anything seriously. I've never seen anyone who habitually brings in so many irrelevances. My talking about my mother-in-law for five hours pales in comparison with the crap you talk. No difference at all in kind between you and tygxc talking about Mr S's project all the time.
<<<The existing definitions are second rate jargon and are the reason for a general difficulty many have in understanding this subject.>>>
There you seem to disagree with the academics who have spent years studying game theory. For my part, I prefer the second rate jargon to anything you have proposed to replace it. Mainly because it's workable and your suggestion of replacing it with ambiguities is not.
Yes I do, don't I. I can still think but perhaps you can't? Of course, I can have no idea as to what your starting level was like.
The are no good moves in a position. Only bad moves that changes the Balance of the Position.
No move can improve the position with perfect play. You can only make the position worst against perfect play.
And remember a move that wins slower, or loses faster in not a imperfect move. As it does not change the balance of the position.
Chess does not give extra credit for finding these types of moves.
But with a perfect solved solution of the game of chess. This information is nice to know, and is known.
In the context of solving chess, a good move is any move that doesn't alter the game state. It has nothing to do with anything else and MAR is incapable of thinking clearly and logically.
There are only good moves and bad moves. If a move doesn't alter the game state, then it cannot be a losing move. If it complicates the game, it may be to the taste of someone who doesn't want to give an opponent an easy game. So no subjective evaluations are relevant, which is why MAR is wrong, as well as being a troll.
Yes, this is why some fall down this rabbit hole.
They want to classify some moves as tricky, or other such nonsense. And you are moving away from perfect play. To the imperfect play of the humans or computers.
This is not relevant to the discussion. As this is Subjective.
To Perfect play there is no such thing as a tricky move!
Is your mother tongue English? I think not and I also think you enjoy being perverse.
But confusion is catching and there are those here who deliberately spread the virus! I think you've been exposed to it for too long.
This is absolutely not a 90° angle.