chess is probably going to be solved in the next 5-10 years with the use of cloud computers
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
May 20, 2024
0
#7503
Another person who doesn't use smileys. I always leave them out too. They seem to accuse the reader of being incapable of detecting irony unless it's pointed out to them.
May 20, 2024
0
#7504
It will take a lot longer than 5-10 years unless there is some unforeseeable breakthrough to a whole new approach to computing. The sheer amount of data storage necessary will stymie any efforts along lines presently employable.
@10080
If Chess is no draw, then each drawn game must contain an odd number of errors (?).
If Chess is a draw, then each drawn game must contain an even number of errors (?).
That is only true if a blunder (??), that turns a won position into a lost position, counts as a double error (??).
@10112
"I have a feeling everyone here is trolling except tygxc and Megan"
++ Maybe. I myself am certainly guilty of feeding some trolls.
It is unfortunate the subject attracts so many trolls.
That's why you make 1 odd error instead of 2
In the games and test that theory
To prove yourself right you need to prove yourself wrong first
@10088
"I was directing Megacheese on the best way to find good content on the topic"
++ Yes, he should definitely go to that thread, and you too.
Now I recall, you were the mechanic.
tygxc wrote:
@10088
"I was directing Megacheese on the best way to find good content on the topic"
++ Yes, he should definitely go to that thread, and you too.
Now I recall, you were the mechanic.
I remember seeing this before in this thread, probably a year or two ago. Ty is using poisson distribution to try and prove that only draw fits the error distribution. Problem is, errors in a chess game are not all similar in likelihood, nor are the errors during a single game independent of each other. Therefore poisson distribution doesn't apply here accurately and doesn't actually prove the point.
May 20, 2024
0
#7510
tygxc im not interested in talking to you beyond reminding the world of your fallacies.
im frankly insulted that you think you have any place in discussing subtleties that im interested in.
Until he tries to disprove themself that will be true
I like the frase "to prove yourself right you need to prove yourself wrong first "
In fact that's what a lot of studies do in stats (not all of them but a good chunk of them)
May 20, 2024
0
#7512
I would agree that the argument is very simple. Judging by its content the same could be said of its creator.
Optimissed wrote:
You're unpleasant to people when they disagree with your opinions, because you're extremely opinionated to the extent of displaying paranoic symptoms when disagreed with.
Go ahead and dig up some of my displayed symptoms of paranoia as well then, I guess?
Optimissed wrote:
Probably this post is the nearest thing to hand.
As usual, you have nothing to show and are incapable of remembering or finding things. This is what happens any and every time you make a claim and are asked for any examples. Every single time. It's one of the reasons you have to fall back on dubious IQ claims, to hide the lack of substance.
Optimissed wrote:
Let's take the hypothesis that chess is won for black. Black makes an error and the game's drawn but white misses its significance, doesn't capitalise and makes another error, so the game's back to being a black win, except that black misses the significance of the error by white and it's a draw again. Then white capitalises on the errors and it's drawing. Fifteen moves later black blunders and all of a sudden white is winning and does capitalise on it but three moves later, white blunders and black is winning.
Now, in all these cases, the so-called error is a blunder. An error is a move that makes the game significantly more difficult to play and it's nonsense to suggest that losing your queen when you're a K+Q vs K to reach a draw isn't a blunder. Disregarding that, black makes a further error and the game is drawn. No further blunders and the game ends in a draw, which is the expected result for "good moves by either side", since when the game was played, it wasn't realised that chess is a black forced win.
So that's the kind of scenario we're interested in. The trouble is, there's absolutely no reason or way that any game containing errors is a proof of anything. The analysis engine has no need to count up errors and blunders, except to prove some completely artificial and unnecessary pronouncement, concerning odd and even numbers of errors.
Therefore, the only thing the game theorists were really interested in "proving" is that the World should obey them and henceforth significantly distort nomenclature and add to the general confusion which causes people like Elroch to drone on pointlessly about what he thinks a weak solution really is, whilst completely missing something very simple like that.
Which is why he can't debate for nuts.
...he said, posting a whole lot of blather. Are you sure you don't want to keep adding a few more exchanges of blunders/errors to your first paragraph? It might help hide the lack of new ideas or content.
Optimissed wrote:
To tell the truth, I'm not obsessed by you although the reverse is the case. You don't really mean much to me. Finished ranting?
I respond to your posts when you go off the rails. Same thing for all the crackpots. When you are being only vaguely objectionable and not making any silly claims, I don't post much.
Optimissed wrote:
Still, it did encapsulate tygxc's mistake in a way that you really clever lot don't seem to be able to do.
Sure, nobody else has brought up anything about numbers of errors or the determinability of same at all...lol.
Optimissed wrote:
It was a bedtime story. You should be asleep now and not planning your next rant.
It's noon. Well calculated.
Optimissed wrote:
DiogenesDue wrote:
Go ahead and dig up some of my displayed symptoms of paranoia as well then, I guess?
Here? I mean, this comment?
Now explain for us exactly which words indicate paranoia...outside of your own head.
Optimissed wrote:
DiogenesDue wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Still, it did encapsulate tygxc's mistake in a way that you really clever lot don't seem to be able to do.
Sure, nobody else has brought up anything about numbers of errors or the determinability of same at all...lol.
I think I made one comment that I couldn't see the point and then you lot debated it for two years. About two years in, I made a comment to the effect that it didn't seem to have any bearing and next time I looked, a month or two later, you were all talking about something else that was equally irrelevant.
Translation: people posted about the topic (for probably much less than 2 years), you thought it was about you the whole time. Then you made a single comment, and months later (aka the next day or so, because you've never been able to keep yourself away without external interference) you decided everyone followed your lead. All content but yours being irrelevant in any case...have I summed up your worldview adequately?
@9969
"a draw doesn't mean perfect play" ++ But 106 draws out of 106 games does.
Draws with humans... Humans suck at chess.
Not really. He's talking about ICCF chess. That's effectively draws with the latest version of SF.
Having said that the latest version of SF sucks at chess too (even under FIDE competition rules for which it's designed). It's just better than anything else.
I've given @tygxc a comparable number of examples of SF drawing 100% with itself from both winning and drawing positions that can be checked by tablebase, every single game containing blunders. Makes no difference. He just carries on posting crap.