""top supercomputers playing each other" ++ at 5 days/move? Not 5 hours, 5 minutes, or 5 seconds per move." wow big number, since when was that mathematical proof?
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
May 20, 2024
0
#7583
reminder that ive taken tygxc's arguments to dozens of my fellow math majors and mathematicians, and ALL of them found the EXACT same errors in his claims that I did.
May 21, 2024
0
#7584
Chess has more combinations than there are atoms in the observable universe so good luck solving it Elon.
May 21, 2024
0
#7585
TumoKonnin wrote:
DiogenesDue wrote:
TumoKonnin wrote:
it is widely believed that chess is a forced draw with perfect play as we know so far.
Yes, it is widely believed, not claimed as if proven. Thus the differing definitions of the words belief vs. claim.
it actually has been proven with the engines we have. play a game of chess stockfish vs stockfish. it will eventually lead to a draw
If you play a game stockfish's first iteration vs stockfish latest version the new improved version will prevail. Engines are constantly improving, so any conclusions based on the premise that today's engines play perfectly is untenable.
@10222
Chess has 10^44 legal positions, of which 10^37 are without promotions to pieces not previously captured. To weakly solve Chess, as Schaeffer did for Checkers, 10^17 of those are relevant.
@10223
"a game stockfish's first iteration vs stockfish latest version the new improved version will prevail."
++ Yes, for a given time per move the newer version makes less mistakes than the elder version.
"Engines are constantly improving"
++ Yes, they can now reach the same low error rate in less time/move.
"any conclusions based on the premise that today's engines play perfectly is untenable"
++ That today's engines play perfectly is no premise at all.
The observed fact is that now 106 games out of 106 drawing the ICCF World Championship Finals with 17 ICCF (grand)masters with multiple engines and at average 5 days/move.
The conclusion is that these (grand)masters with their engines now play perfectly.
May 21, 2024
0
#7588
Why are we taking Elon seriously? Tesla was supposed to be fully autonomous like a decade ago.
May 21, 2024
0
#7589
"++ That today's engines play perfectly is no premise at all.
The observed fact is that now 106 games out of 106 drawing the ICCF World Championship Finals with 17 ICCF (grand)masters with multiple engines and at average 5 days/move.
The conclusion is that these (grand)masters with their engines now play perfectly"
thats not a conclusion lmfao. thats you just making it the premise while waving your hands
May 21, 2024
0
#7590
TheKrugingDunnerEffect wrote:
Honestly, I'm surprised he is still trying to defend his arguments. He may be educated, but his logic skills aren't that great. His ICCF results are not absolute proof because NEITHER engines NOR humans can play PERFECT CHESS. How many times does it need to be said?
here's the thing: Tygxc ISN'T educated. the way he handles the topics he throws around are clearly of someone who has only seen them once or twice on the internet, and has dunning-krugered himself into thinking he understands them.
its very much like how an anti-vaxxer or climate change denier would form their argument, except that the climate change deniers/antivaxxers have more self awareness than tygxc.
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
TheKrugingDunnerEffect wrote:
Honestly, I'm surprised he is still trying to defend his arguments. He may be educated, but his logic skills aren't that great. His ICCF results are not absolute proof because NEITHER engines NOR humans can play PERFECT CHESS. How many times does it need to be said?
here's the thing: Tygxc ISN'T educated. the way he handles the topics he throws around are clearly of someone who has only seen them once or twice on the internet, and has dunning-krugered himself into thinking he understands them.
its very much like how an anti-vaxxer or climate change denier would form their argument, except that the climate change deniers/antivaxxers have more self awareness than tygxc.
Eh, the whole anti/pro vaxx thing is a mess, the opinions that are discussed are usually one extreme or the other... This chess being solved discussion has taken a more objective direction, what can or can't we prove with the information we have.
May 21, 2024
0
#7592
TheKrugingDunnerEffect wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
TheKrugingDunnerEffect wrote:
Honestly, I'm surprised he is still trying to defend his arguments. He may be educated, but his logic skills aren't that great. His ICCF results are not absolute proof because NEITHER engines NOR humans can play PERFECT CHESS. How many times does it need to be said?
here's the thing: Tygxc ISN'T educated. the way he handles the topics he throws around are clearly of someone who has only seen them once or twice on the internet, and has dunning-krugered himself into thinking he understands them.
its very much like how an anti-vaxxer or climate change denier would form their argument, except that the climate change deniers/antivaxxers have more self awareness than tygxc.
Yeah, although he did say he's way past calculus.
the way he forms his arguments, he hasnt taken a mathematical proof course in his life, or has completely forgotten everything in them. of course, one doesnt need a math course to see the errors in tygxc's "logic", as they are all such basic errors.
May 21, 2024
0
#7593
Kotshmot wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
TheKrugingDunnerEffect wrote:
Honestly, I'm surprised he is still trying to defend his arguments. He may be educated, but his logic skills aren't that great. His ICCF results are not absolute proof because NEITHER engines NOR humans can play PERFECT CHESS. How many times does it need to be said?
here's the thing: Tygxc ISN'T educated. the way he handles the topics he throws around are clearly of someone who has only seen them once or twice on the internet, and has dunning-krugered himself into thinking he understands them.
its very much like how an anti-vaxxer or climate change denier would form their argument, except that the climate change deniers/antivaxxers have more self awareness than tygxc.
Eh, the whole anti/pro vaxx thing is a mess, the opinions that are discussed are usually one extreme or the other... This chess being solved discussion has taken a more objective direction, what can or can't we prove with the information we have.
you havent been looking at tygxc's claims and arguments.
hes been claiming that a lack of counterexample provided is an absolute mathematical proof
hes been basing his 5-year solution argument off of a calculation error he made with a factor of 100 million.
he claims that chess is mathematically proven to be a draw, because these engines "have perfect play". and whats the mathematical proof tygxc provides for the engines having "perfect play"? he claims that they have perfect play because chess is a draw.
May 21, 2024
0
#7594
Chess can be solved via CCAODW. Go to one of the forums that give advice to beginners to see that rule.
May 21, 2024
0
#7595
CharlestonViennaGambit wrote:
Chess can be solved via CCAODW. Go to one of the forums that give advice to beginners to see that rule.
Congratulations - we can all stop posting now.
Er, what was the answer by the way?
CharlestonViennaGambit wrote:
Chess can be solved via CCAODW. Go to one of the forums that give advice to beginners to see that rule.
What does that mean exactly causei have a feeling that doesn't solve a board game just certain positions
What tyxgc is doing is a perfect example of "hope chessing"
May 21, 2024
0
#7598
@Optimissed's approach is obviously far superior. He fails to either read the question or understand the basics of the subject and instead makes up his own meanings for the terms in which it is discussed then fills up half the thread with totally useless verbiage that is at cross purposes with everybody else. Well past mature enough, you can almost see the maggots wriggling.
Plot twist dio ,playerafar ,optimmissed, and ellroch is the same person and all just troll alts
May 21, 2024
0
#7600
Optimissed wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
TheKrugingDunnerEffect wrote:
Honestly, I'm surprised he is still trying to defend his arguments. He may be educated, but his logic skills aren't that great. His ICCF results are not absolute proof because NEITHER engines NOR humans can play PERFECT CHESS. How many times does it need to be said?
here's the thing: Tygxc ISN'T educated. the way he handles the topics he throws around are clearly of someone who has only seen them once or twice on the internet, and has dunning-krugered himself into thinking he understands them.
its very much like how an anti-vaxxer or climate change denier would form their argument, except that the climate change deniers/antivaxxers have more self awareness than tygxc.
Eh, the whole anti/pro vaxx thing is a mess, the opinions that are discussed are usually one extreme or the other... This chess being solved discussion has taken a more objective direction, what can or can't we prove with the information we have.
you havent been looking at tygxc's claims and arguments.
hes been claiming that a lack of counterexample provided is an absolute mathematical proof
hes been basing his 5-year solution argument off of a calculation error he made with a factor of 100 million.
he claims that chess is mathematically proven to be a draw, because these engines "have perfect play". and whats the mathematical proof tygxc provides for the engines having "perfect play"? he claims that they have perfect play because chess is a draw.
If you look at the arguments of people like Dio and Elroch, they tend to argue in the exact same way. They give a bad example or a bad argument and to them, the lack of a counter-example means they won, even if no-one actually took them on. So it's hypocritical to pick on the arguments of the side of the discussion you're opposed to and to criticise them for the very same errors those arguing on your side make.
Actually, the two sides are polar-opposed. Neither is realistic. Whilst tygxc places too much faith in whatever test-games are actually being played at the time and claims they offer perfect information, the people who wrongly believe that chess is a game of perfect info weirdly support a mathematical solution argument. It's weird because a mathematical solution is impossible, at least for the present. It's as far removed from reality as a strong solution of chess is removed from reality. But as I pointed out, chess cannot be regarded as a game of perfect info since it HASN'T been solved, which means that the so-called perfect info is in code.
Possibly you aren't yet mature enough as a person to address these points, since I haven't seen you address them yet and I've certainly given a more accurate overview of the nature of the problem than anyone else I've noticed.
Is it just me or does optimissed sound like chatgpt
The arguments in this forum are epic! Let me go grab some popcorn 🍿🍿