Chess will never be solved, here's why - Chess Forums - Page 386

TheChessIntellectReturns · 2022-01-16T22:50:19-08:00

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 coul

tygxc

Jan 29, 2023

0

#7701

@7979

++ What is the relevance to (weakly) solving Chess?

MEGACHE3SE

Jan 29, 2023

0

#7702

DesperateKingWalk wrote:

MEGACHE3SE wrote:

DesperateKingWalk wrote:

MEGACHE3SE wrote:

optimissed the "weakly solved" that tygxc is claiming to cite is literally defined by there being such an algorithm.

There is no algorithm possible in chess for what is being claimed. Chess in reality is not a strategy game. So algorithms will fail in most cases. As chess is a 100% tactical game. And every chess position only has 3 true evaluations. White wins, Black wins, or the position is a draw with perfect play.

And they only way to know what one is correct is by pure calculation in most cases.

And that is the reason why chess will never be, and can never be solved.

The game tree is just far too vast.

again, thats not how algorithms are defined in terms of "solving" you know the 7 piece tablebase? that's techinically an algorithm.

TB are not an algorithm. TB are tables of already calculated moves and stored. There is no calculation being done.

Algorithm defined.

a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer.

yes. the rules are to follow the tablebase.

you have an input and output.

tygxc

Jan 29, 2023

0

#7703

@7981

++ What is the relevance to (weakly) solving Chess? Is this semantics only?

MEGACHE3SE

Jan 29, 2023

0

#7704

tygxc wrote:

@7981

++ What is the relevance to (weakly) solving Chess? Is this semantics only?

its literally the terminology u use and the method you attempt to define.

there would be about 10^17 positions in the database of the weak solution to chess.

MEGACHE3SE

Jan 29, 2023

0

#7705

you still also havent proved that black doesnt always win.

tygxc

Jan 29, 2023

0

#7706

@7984

"you still also havent proved that black doesnt always win"
++ The first move is an advantage called the initiative, albeit insufficient to win.
Chess cannot be a black win because of strategy stealing. Whatever you device as a possible black win, there is a white sequence that achieves the same position in reverse by losing a tempo.
Besides, it runs contrary to millions of human and engine games at top level: most are draws, some white wins, less black wins. In all decisive games you can pinpoint one mistake.

junSnuw

Jan 29, 2023

0

#7707

wow!

Optimissed

Jan 29, 2023

0

#7708

tygxc wrote:

@7984

"you still also havent proved that black doesnt always win"
++ The first move is an advantage called the initiative, albeit insufficient to win.
Chess cannot be a black win because of strategy stealing. Whatever you device as a possible black win, there is a white sequence that achieves the same position in reverse by losing a tempo.

Yes that's true. It was brought up a couple of years ago and weirdly some people argued against it. I think I was the one who originally suggested it. That's probably why. Any argument against that is REALLY abdicating all sense of reason, unless the people concerned couldn't reason in the first place. I think Elroch argued against it because he couldn't see a deductive proof but that's another thing. He believes deductive proof is the only confirmation possible for anything. I suspect a deductive proof is possible but it isn't necessary. Should be obvious. He would say that things that are obvious might not be true. I would ask if he knows he exists.

Besides, it runs contrary to millions of human and engine games at top level: most are draws, some white wins, less black wins. In all decisive games you can pinpoint one mistake.

That is also true. A forced win for black is completely impossible. But that wouldn't satisfy some people, who would argue that your weak solution methodology is wrong for just that reason. I pointed it out a few months ago but you never answer me. I suppose it's a good strategy: always ignoring the person with the sharpest mind and pretending they're a troll. Sort of tries to divide and rule, doesn't it. Meanwhile you can argue to your heart's content with the real troll and people will wrongly imagine you're engaging the enemy.

VishuVenkatesh

Jan 29, 2023

0

#7709

Obiously the human brain is stronger than a machine

snoozyman

Jan 29, 2023

0

#7710

ChatGPT has entered the chat.

Optimissed

Jan 29, 2023

0

#7711

DesperateKingWalk wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

tygxc wrote:

@7984

"you still also havent proved that black doesnt always win"
++ The first move is an advantage called the initiative, albeit insufficient to win.
Chess cannot be a black win because of strategy stealing. Whatever you device as a possible black win, there is a white sequence that achieves the same position in reverse by losing a tempo.

Yes that's true. It was brought up a couple of years ago and weirdly some people argued against it. I think I was the one who originally suggested it. That's probably why. Any argument against that is REALLY abdicating all sense of reason, unless the people concerned couldn't reason in the first place. I think Elroch argued against it because he couldn't see a deductive proof but that's another thing. He believes deductive proof is the only confirmation possible for anything. I suspect a deductive proof is possible but it isn't necessary. Should be obvious. He would say that things that are obvious might not be true. I would ask if he knows he exists.

Besides, it runs contrary to millions of human and engine games at top level: most are draws, some white wins, less black wins. In all decisive games you can pinpoint one mistake.

That is also true. A forced win for black is completely impossible. But that wouldn't satisfy some people, who would argue that your weak solution methodology is wrong for just that reason. I pointed it out a few months ago but you never answer me. I suppose it's a good strategy: always ignoring the person with the sharpest mind and pretending they're a troll. Sort of tries to divide and rule, doesn't it. Meanwhile you can argue to your heart's content with the real troll and people will wrongly imagine you're engaging the enemy.

You guys just make up stuff as you move along.

"A forced win for black is completely impossible"

Why? What proof do you have of this revelation. ZERO PROOF!

It is just another guess you clowns pawn off as facts.

You're a very silly person indeed. You're pretentious and posing as if you understand basically everything but you hardly even have a brain. I'm sure you wouldn't understand what a proof is.

Optimissed

Jan 29, 2023

0

#7712

If you're so clever, tell me how to prove anything. How would you prove that a forced win for black is possible, for instance??

Optimissed

Jan 29, 2023

0

#7713

VishuVenkatesh wrote:

Obiously the human brain is stronger than a machine

Especially yours.

Optimissed

Jan 29, 2023

0

#7714

JeremyCrowhurst wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

"...to any who stick their noses above the sandbags."

I am going to usurp this phrase, add it to my general conversational vocabulary, and pretend that I thought of it myself.

Many thanks, and also apologies.

The normality is probably regarding "heads" and "parapet" rather than noses and sandbags. You're extremely welcome and I take it as a compliment.

Optimissed

Jan 29, 2023

0

#7715

btickler wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

[Link removed]
I think she could possibly help you with your problems. I don't know what she charges.

Please, do your daughter a favor and take that link down.

I did it just because I expected such a reaction from a paranoiac. But I will do, because, amazingly, you had the sense to remove it from your quotation, so you aren't being a hypocrite for once. That doesn't mean I don't know you're mentally ill, though. It means you were right on this occasion. I know you deny having such problems but quite frankly, anyone who can write such stuff as you do has at the very least a marked personality disorder. I think it runs deeper and that would explain your extreme sense of over-conventionality as well as your noticeable aggression against anyone who offends your personal sense of social morality. You may have heard of Judge Jeffries.

jumbofox321

Jan 29, 2023

0

#7716

achievement

Optimissed

Jan 29, 2023

0

#7717

MEGACHE3SE wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

MEGACHE3SE wrote:

tygxc wrote:

@7911

"a weakly solved game has an algorithm for perfect play"
++ No, a weakly solved game has
a strategy to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition.
A strategy is no algorithm.
A strategy can be a set of moves like Checkers, or a set of rules like Connect Four, or a combination, most likely for Chess.

a strategy is an algorithm by definition lmao.

Yes but not a precise algorithm. If I find myself two pawns up with a winning attack I may choose strategies. There may be some danger in the winning attack whereas using the threat of the attack to get the pieces off with an easily won ending is a strategy I might adopt. An engine might be more likely to go for the winning attack. The endgame strategy might be the best course for me because there's no danger. Such a strategy may be much more complex than the strategy of pursuing the winning attack but the tactics are easier. An engine might have difficulty in finding such a strategy by chance.

nono i know in regular speak a strategy isnt an algorithm, but in the math terms that tygxc uses it is.

I think tygxc uses the term wrongly. He feels he's backed up by the experts but I believe I was able to demonstrate that they also were confused and why that occurred.

The root of the trouble is involving games theorists in solving chess. It isn't appropriate because games theorists actually do use paper algorithms to score strategies, in order to try to shape a procedure to the best replication of real life cause and effect. However, the scoring methodology is sheer guesswork which is honed by successive approximations. Their procedures consist of models of reality.

Guesswork is inapplicable in solving chess and therefore games theory is inapplicable. The original fault would be with whatever dodo first involved games theorists, unless, of course, they themselves were the dodos. The only applicable strategy is finding good moves. Nothing else.

DiogenesDue

Jan 29, 2023

0

#7718

Optimissed wrote:

btickler wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

[Link removed]
I think she could possibly help you with your problems. I don't know what she charges.

Please, do your daughter a favor and take that link down.

I did it just because I expected such a reaction from a paranoiac. But I will do, because, amazingly, you had the sense to remove it from your quotation, so you aren't being a hypocrite for once. That doesn't mean I don't know you're mentally ill, though. It means you were right on this occasion. I know you deny having such problems but quite frankly, anyone who can write such stuff as you do has at the very least a marked personality disorder. I think it runs deeper and that would explain your extreme sense of over-conventionality as well as your noticeable aggression against anyone who offends your personal sense of social morality. You may have heard of Judge Jeffries.

Your memory is a bit off .

This is not the first, nor even the second time that I have done something like this when you posted something oversharing about your family. I have also done the removed link bit for several other old codgers lacking in good sense over the years. I'm actually quite consistent about it. There's no reason others should suffer for your indiscretions.

ARishi2020

Jan 29, 2023

0

#7719

https://www.chess.com/club/avengers-society

Optimissed

Jan 29, 2023

0

#7720

btickler wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

btickler wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

[Link removed]
I think she could possibly help you with your problems. I don't know what she charges.

Please, do your daughter a favor and take that link down.

I did it just because I expected such a reaction from a paranoiac. But I will do, because, amazingly, you had the sense to remove it from your quotation, so you aren't being a hypocrite for once. That doesn't mean I don't know you're mentally ill, though. It means you were right on this occasion. I know you deny having such problems but quite frankly, anyone who can write such stuff as you do has at the very least a marked personality disorder. I think it runs deeper and that would explain your extreme sense of over-conventionality as well as your noticeable aggression against anyone who offends your personal sense of social morality. You may have heard of Judge Jeffries.

Your memory is a bit off .

This is not the first, nor even the second time that I have done something like this when you posted something oversharing about your family. I have also done the removed link bit for several other old codgers lacking in good sense over the years. I'm actually quite consistent about it. There's no reason others should suffer for your indiscretions.

The whole point is this kind of thing that you're doing shows that you are, without doubt, mentally ill or at least it's a personality disorder that's moderate to severe. It isn't in question. Do you know I don't read your posts past the first sentence usually? If you didn't have that problem, your behaviour would be different but it's always the same and each time you troll someone, you pretend they're the only victim, to try to prevent the general realisation that you really are a troll. You won't know it because of your condition .... now, there's plenty of other loonies around ...... pull yourself together or talk among yourselves.