taketake - you're doing a study on --- yourself.
I'll find some different posts now to reply to.
taketake's posts can be ignored but still have a use because they can be posted around.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
May 21, 2024
0
#7642
You sound like you want to win every argument so your perfect for what I'm doin
Cause just go on and on forever your not the only one(but your the only one in telling this to )
I'm trying to conferm my reasonings when people are either delusional or conspiracy therorists act and I confirmed that along with 10 other people
playerafar wrote:
taketake - you're doing a study on --- yourself.
I'll find some decent posts now to reply to.
taketake's posts can be ignored but still have a use because they can be posted around.
Yes they can be ignored unless they are for chess advice thank you
❤️
There's a difference in participating and doing a study on yourself
I'm participating in it of course but im not the test subject LEARN YOUR GRAMMER please and thank you 🙏
taketakemoretake wrote:
There's a difference in participating and doing a study on yourself
I'm participating in it of course but im not the test subject LEARN YOUR GRAMMER please and thank you 🙏
Is LEARN YOUR GRAMMER in all caps part of your test? Because if not...
May 21, 2024
0
#7647
TheChessIntellectReturns wrote:
Imagine a chess position of X paradigms.
Now, a chess computer rated 3000 solves that position. All well and good.
Could another computer rated a zillion solve that position better than Rybka?
No, because not even chess computer zillion could solve the Ruy Lopez better than a sad FIDE master could.
the point is, there's chess positions with exact solutions. Either e4, or d4, or c4, etc.
nothing in the world can change that.
So if you are talking about chess as a competitive sport, then chess has already been solved by kasparov, heck, by capablanca.
If you are talking chess as a meaningless sequence of algorithms, where solving chess equates not to logical solutions of positional and tactical prowess, but as 'how many chess positions could ensure from this one?'' type of solutions, then, the solutions are infinite.
So can chess be solved? If it is as a competitive sport where one side must, win, then it has already been solved. Every possible BEST move in chess has been deduced long ago.
If chess is a meaningless set of moves, with no goal in sight, then sure, chess will never be solved.
That's the opening post two years ago.
It got 134 thumbs up - but it looks flawed.
And more than once.
"Every possible BEST move in chess has been deduced long ago. "
False.
They haven't even solved for nine pieces on the board.
But - the topic lends itself to discussion - debate - arguments - and other things.
May 21, 2024
0
#7648
DiogenesDue wrote:
taketakemoretake wrote:
There's a difference in participating and doing a study on yourself
I'm participating in it of course but im not the test subject LEARN YOUR GRAMMER please and thank you 🙏
Is LEARN YOUR GRAMMER in all caps part of your test? Because if not...
That misspelling of 'grammar' by taketake might have been intentional.
He has to keep disguising who he is.
He already made some 'slips'.
In another forum he just made this post about BC ...
"But nothing doesn't fit for BC you can't tell what he's thinking he's very random"
Obviously BC isn't 'random'. taketake's response was a kneejerk response.
I've got three candidates for who taketake is.
Two of them posting in this forum.
-------------------------------
And - noting - BC - BigChessplayer665 is now Muted by chess.com.
We don't know yet why. Might not know.
But if he's still muted two days from now then it had to be something extra 'bad'. But that would be no surprise.
We'll also see if TT keeps holding BC's hand and O's too.
Back on topic.
The ICCF World Championship Finals with 106 draws out of 106 games is about the weak solution of Chess.
GM Sveshnikov said: 'Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess.'
The 17 ICCF (grand)masters are the good assistants, their computers are the latest,
and they accomplished it in 2 years.
Their result is redundant:
1 e4 e5 draws: 21 games
1 e4 c5 draws: 15 games
1 e4 e6 draws: 2 games
1 d4 Nf6 draws: 35 games
1 d4 d5 draws: 17 games
1 Nf3 d5 draws: 8 games
1 Nf3 Nf6 draws: 8 games
Even if the distribution of errors (?) per game is 105-0-1 as per Elroch instead of 106-0-0,
i.e. if in one branch a pair of errors (?) were found that undo each other,
then still the other branch is available as a back-up to draw.
Their result is exhaustive.
Assuming 16 engines of 10^7 nodes per second for each of the 17 ICCF (grand)masters,
they looked in 2 years at:
10^7 nodes/second/engine * 16 engines/grandmaster * 17 grandmasters * 3600 seconds/hour * 24 hours/day * 365.25 days/year * 2 years = 1.7 * 10^17 positions
As explained earlier weakly solving Chess requires:
Sqrt (10^37 * 10 / 10,000) = 10^17 positions
May 21, 2024
0
#7650
I'll be very efficient with tygxc
latest computers won't be 'latest' for long.
Have fun T.
@10147
Sveshnikov said 5 years in 2007.
Now they did it in 2 years.
In a few years the same can be done in less time.
Elroch wrote:
A relevant joke:
An astronomer, a physicist, and a mathematician are taking a train from London to Glasgow, they cross into Scotland and see a field with black sheep. The astronomer says "all the sheep in Scotland are black", the physicist says "no, some of the sheep in Scotland are black and the mathematician says "no, there exists in Scotland at least one field in which exists at least one sheep at least one side of which is black".
Only in UK
May 22, 2024
0
#7653
tygxc wrote:
@10147
Sveshnikov said 5 years in 2007.
Now they did it in 2 years.
In a few years the same can be done in less time.
You seem unfamiliar with the growth in computing power. Raw computing power is now perhaps 1000 times cheaper than in 2007, so you should be able to manage the job over a weekend.
Correct me if you did so and failed to tell us. Or is it that there is no-one in the world interested enough to do such an undemanding task? Far more computing power was used to rigorously find a new largest prime in 2018 (while it only took 12 days of computing to check the primality of the largest prime, a large number of others were rejected on the way. There have been 12 huge primes discovered between 2^20,000,000 and 2^85,000,000. No more have been discovered since 2018.
In truth you remain clueless as to what rigor is. Achieving exactly the same for chess as was achieved for checkers using 1000 years of CPU time would take a lot more computing power than the whole world will have for the foreseeable future.
@10150
"you should be able to manage the job over a weekend"
++ It took 2 years: started 20 November 2022, 30 games ongoing.
"no-one in the world interested enough"
++ 17 ICCF (grand)masters were interested to compete in the World Championship Finals
"checkers using 1000 years of CPU time"
++ Most of that time went into generating the table base. For Chess that is a separate project.
tygxc wrote:
As explained earlier weakly solving Chess requires:
Sqrt (10^37 * 10 / 10,000) = 10^17 positions
I am 100% sure that this square root thing comes from some misunderstanding. Nobody in their right mind can suggest that 99.999999999999999 percent of chess positions are irrelevant, we should just solve the rest and we're done.
May 22, 2024
0
#7656
tygxc wrote:
@10150
"you should be able to manage the job over a weekend"
++ It took 2 years: started 20 November 2022, 30 games ongoing.
I can authoritatively tell you that did not in any sense solve chess. It is a fact that most of the people on the planet don't have an adequate knowledge to understand that. You are one of that majority.
"checkers using 1000 years of CPU time"
++ Most of that time went into generating the table base. For Chess that is a separate project.
That is a genuine project in which there is considerable interest, and for which supercomputers have been used. But the comparable tablebase for chess (say a 16 piece one) won't be possible to create in the foreseeable future.
May 22, 2024
0
#7657
Yes, he literally just said the French was a draw based on 2 games. To be frank, that is stupid.
Anyone can see that two samples are not adequate for a general conclusion (in truth no number is without being part of a proof).
May 22, 2024
0
#7658
magipi wrote:
tygxc wrote:
As explained earlier weakly solving Chess requires:
Sqrt (10^37 * 10 / 10,000) = 10^17 positions
I am 100% sure that this square root thing comes from some misunderstanding. Nobody in their right mind can suggest that 99.999999999999999 percent of chess positions are irrelevant, we should just solve the rest and we're done.
There is a germ of truth in this. The root is that when you construct a strategy, you can ignore most of the moves for one side. For example, as black you could play the Sicilian and ignore all of the other defenses to 1.e4 (except by transposition). Without transpositions, this would suggest a square root rule.
In practice, solving checkers involved about N^(2/3) of the number of positions N, because transposition happens a lot. It would not have been possible to deal with N positions.
It may be worse for chess, because it is less directional than checkers (all the pieces can only move forwards in checkers until they "king", while in chess it is just the pawns).
@10152
"this square root thing comes from some misunderstanding"
++ Many people still do not understand.
For strongly solving Chess, you need N black moves for each of N white moves,
i.e. N² positions.
For weakly solving Chess, you need only 1 black move for each of N white moves,
i.e N = Sqrt (N²) positions.
In the initial position white has 20 legal moves and black has 20 legal moves,
that leaves 20*20 = 400 positions.
For weakly solving Chess we only need 1 black response for each of the 20 white moves,
i.e. 20*1 = 20 = Sqrt (400) positions.
More generally if we go to depth d with width w of legal moves excluding transpositions,
instead of w^(2d) we only need w^d = sqrt (w^(2d)) positions.
@10155
"he literally just said the French was a draw based on 2 games"
++ Well there are 2 French games, and they are draws, and they are perfect games,
so yes, the French should be a draw. There might be some more in the 30 ongoing games.
However, if you reject basing on 2 games,
then you still have 1 e4 e5 (21 games) and 1 e4 c5 (15 games). So the redundancy is there.
I know how I think I just need to know how the trolls think "hense study" it isn't really real yet but I'm going it will become better when the next year so far only testing