In this case, I'd consider ancient to include 1300, because it was by comparison with the Enlightenment, as the time at which modern science began. I used the word to emphasise how relatively old it was.
I would agree it is most commonly used for examples like ancient Greece and ancient Rome which are older still.
I
will
g
e
t
The generally accepted "end" of the ancient world is the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century. This shortly followed the establishment of Christianity as the official religion in the empire and the irruption of the Huns into Europe, resulting in a centuries-long shuffling of population throughout the continent and the obliteration of the knowledge and institutions that had existed for 1000+ years.
The gradual growth of a new civilization really shifted into high gear in fourteenth-century Italy so William of Ockham was a figure from the end of medieval times. (The renaissance didn't reach England until after his death.) This really puts him at the the dawn of the modern era.
Proof of concept solving one ECO code would take 4 months on a cloud engine.
Maybe it has already been done. Maybe Nepo and / or Caruana have solved the Petrov. Maybe Carlsen has solved the Sveshnikov and / or the Marshall. They have worked with cloud engines and their teams have prepared for months.
Proof of concept solving one ECO code would take 4 months on a cloud engine.
Maybe it has already been done. Maybe Nepo and / or Caruana have solved the Petrov. Maybe Carlsen has solved the Sveshnikov and / or the Marshall. They have worked with cloud engines and their teams have prepared for months.
Maybe every super GM has already solved chess for their favorite openings, and are all keeping it secret from the public, you know, for the massive tournament winnings...
Opening books: flawed analysis
Engines: flawed analysis
Tablebases: perfect analysis
Using 1 and 2 to get to 3 proves nothing.
Hi Btickler.
I've heard of this "Occam's razor" before. Are you familiar with Redpill78?
Yeah. It's complete garbage.
Just keep playing for fun and be happy on Chess2Play.com and Chess.com
Just keep playing for fun and be happy on Chess2Play.com and Chess.com
And we get to talk. Too.
Okay - checking back after another 50 posts.
@btickler is doing a good job of exposing the huge errors in 'hard guy's' posts.
Regarding posting about one's family and using that as a tactic in discussions - that reminds me of a 'protected' person who made a habit of posting family videos in forums that had nothing to do with same.
This exploited the inhibitions that many original posters have about blocking.
The 'family video' guy also conducted constant personal attacks - used the most explicit profanity constantly but continued to be 'protected'.
He was only club-banned because the person protecting him was muted site-wide.
Ironically - that most-protected person was only banned from the website (after years of offenses) after he was caught cheating at chess. 
Relevancy: To discuss the subject - means of such discussion can be discussed.
So far - at least four people here are both capable and willing to discuss the math involved. Have been so demonstrating.
There's probably many others. But they're not speaking up much.
'Soft guy' mainly seems to want to push another website - little or no independent discussion from him.
'Hard guy' doesn't want to admit he's math-deficient and will intensify his personalizations and projection. (the most intense projection I've seen on the website. Even projects his own projection. )
But nonetheless - the discussion continues 'around' him and his deficiency in math and logic can be used as well.
To illustrate the actual points.
Elroch seemed to do a good job of that in a recent post.
This for example may be a perfect game
There are many possible perfect games, all draws here
https://www.iccf.com/event?id=85042
Regarding two Kings plus one piece or pawn (but not both) ...
Those can be classified.
But whatever method of classification is significant to other solving.
Such positions with just three onboard could be classified into:
1) already checkmate
2) already stalemate
3) already 'dead' material draw (can only follow directly if the one piece is a knight or bishop)
4) forced draw available with exact play by defending King
5) forced draw available with good enough play by defending King
(note those last two would apparently only happen with the other piece being a pawn)
6) forced win available with exact play by the King with a piece (has to be Queen or rook or pawn)
7) forced win available with good enough play by the King with one of the three good enough pieces.
So there's 7 classifications of positions with just one extra piece or pawn onboard.
In other words - a beginning of defining 'solved'.
8th classification - Not Solved. (Yet). Neither by computer nor by humans directly.
Not yet. Nyet.
The entire task - if its put in terms of games instead of positions - would be increased by many magnitudes. Needlessly. Hopelessly.
To talk about 'solving' - how about some logical attempts at definition?
So far - at least four members have shown some willingness regarding same. I'm sure many others on the website are capable of same.
To attempt to do it or to actually do it.
Or to support a valid definition and to develop the discussion from there.
Does the forum subject connect up with everyday chess ?
Sure it does. Its part of an overview of the game.
Putting things in perspective. Works better from above the forest instead of choosing to be up against a tree.
This for example may be a perfect game
There are many possible perfect games, all draws here
https://www.iccf.com/event?id=85042
Just because they are draws it does not mean they are "perfect" games. Give an engine an indeterminate (but enough) amount of time, it will surely find inaccuracies at least.
But I agree, there are probably millions of dead-draw positions with absolute 100% best play in each single move.
Just like tic-tac-toe, which is also another game with a finite number of potential positions and which has been solved because it's too simple.
#982
Of the 17 participants only 3 lost 1 or more games.
They play 3 days/move and can use data bases, engines, table bases.
Still does not mean it's a "perfect" game. I dont think home computers have the processing capacity to solve games into perfect play from any given arbitrary position within a span of 3 days.
Besides, any deviation from the "perfect" moves would no longer constitute a "perfect" game.
Again, take tic-tac-toe, which has been solved (chess is the same as tic-tac-toe in terms of being a board game with a finite number of positions, and which will have an ending since we have a 50 move rule - no game can keep going on forever). Read this:
https://www.jesperjuul.net/ludologist/2003/12/28/255168-ways-of-playing-tic-tac-toe/
At one point it states
"If neither player makes a mistake, the game is drawn (but we knew that already)."
I would dare say any game of chess in which a player deviates at any point, from the best move, would end up with the other player winning *IF* only the best possible moves are played from then on till the end of the game.
And those kind of games cannot be classified as "perfect" games, even if the other player also fails to play the best move at some point and the game still ends up in a draw.
They are flawed, in the sense that at least one of the moves in the game was not the best possible one.
So just because they drew, does not mean it's a perfect game. I have had draws too, does that mean I played perfect chess well beyond top GMs and top engines? Nope.
Occam's razor is a very central concept in science and other rational discourse. It is remarkable that it is so ancient.
Not really, I'd consider "ancient" to be BC, but this was in the 1300s