@Optimissed has a point tho, all of you except him seem to be going in circles. he kind of is the only one bringing up new topics while @Elroch and all the others just seem to contradict him no matter how valid his argument is.
the main thing is that with regards to the prospective of solving chess, it is a mostly dead topic.
hypothetical question: how does P vs NP affect chess solving?
P v NP can only be relevant to classes of problems with a size parameter that has no upper bound. For example, solving tictactoe on boards of size N x N. It is about how hard it is to find a solution compared with to verify a solution.
well chess can be expanded to larger boards
Yes, and that was his point. Chess as we play it is only on an 8x8 board, so asking whether it (and it alone) is P or NP isn't an appropriate question.
just because im only interested in the 8x8 solution doesnt mean that the P v NP of a generalized form of chess wouldnt give insight on the 8x8 solution, besides, upon a little more reflection, the verification is on too high an order to apply to p v np
Yes, the same occurred to me. It does seem inconceivable that there could be a polynomial complexity verification for solving a generalisation of a game like chess or checkers to larger board. So, it's the wrong problem for P v NP!
@10656
"Proof?" ++ Because the 2 ICCF (grand)masters after ample consultation of their engines agreed on the draw. Even I can see those are 2 draws.
Billions of potentially crucial branches rejected on the grounds of a zero depth evaluation. What could possibly go wrong?
@10655
"the same engine as the ICCF games"
++ And the same time 5 days/move?
Blitz games do not count.
Your argument doesn't anywhere rely on the time taken to move so all games count. Those games were all at 5 sec fixed time per move, but by all means rerun it at 5 days a move and post the games. I would expect similar results.
In fact, in positions where SF is out of its depth increasing the think time can lead to an increase in the blunder rate.
I already posted for you multiple times an analysis of a series of KNNKP games run at different times ranging from 1 sec to 35 min per move. SF's blunder rate under both basic and competition rules at 35 min per move was greater than its blunder rate at 1 sec per move.
(Again starting from a winning position and all but one containing an odd number of half point blunders under both sets of rules, the exception an even number > 0.)
" at 10^7 positions/second/engine "
why do you continue to make this error when it has been repeatedly pointed out?
you falsely construe nodes as a full positional evaluation.
I know you don't like answering me because you aren't very bright, like the others here.
But why do you continue to challenge tygxc when he has amply demonstrated that he isn't going to change what he's doing? All you're doing is making a kind of noise that the other no-hopers here will like. A bit like someone drowning and you standing on the bank shouting "save him!"
I dont answer you because you dont take the discussion seriously while pretending you do. there is no value in considering somebody who doesn't mean what they say.
Why do you imagine I don't mean what I say? I certainly don't see much value in playing lip service to people who can't understand that they are making fools of themselves by going round and round in circles arguing completely unproductively with tygxc. Elroch isn't bright enough to add anything useful. It's as simple as that.
I do agree that you can't always rely on rules of thumb. But for instance, take the Kp vs KNN ending. There's a diagram used where you can enter the pawn position and you immediately know if it's a win, because it's a rule of thumb that depends on how far advanced the pawn is and which file it's on.
Bad example @Optimissed; it has millions of exceptions. (Very good example actually.)
tygxc and Elroch are too much like each other and they both have weaknesses. The rest of you allow yourselves to be led by them and so can you imagine what it's like for someone who knows their conversation is unproductive and that it can't be anything else? MAR is a troll and deliberately messes around with people by talking rubbish, Dio is a troll who is almost incapable of making arguments concerning subject matter, you hang on Elroch's coat tails. You say you're a second year maths student at university? Act like it. Stop pandering to them and use your brain if you have one. Don't be scared of them. Of course they'll try to make it seem you don't know what you're talking about. That's what they always do and you have to learn sometime or other.
Maybe. Well, I suppose you don't and you can be another failure. I've been too busy to be involved in the past few days, I return and it's the same nothing arguments. Just two fools arguing that black's white or an indistinct shade of grey.
It only seems that way to you @Optimissed because you really don't know what you're talking about.
The question if chess can be solved is about mathematicics, not about computers. Someone Said the amount of possible moves is infinite, its not. Infinity is actualy infinitly much bigger. Therfore, with enought time (not infinitly Long time
Chess could be solved in the way that we could map every possible move and counter move.
The question if chess can be solved is about mathematicics, not about computers. Someone Said the amount of possible moves is infinite, its not. Infinity is actualy infinitly much bigger. Therfore, with enought time (not infinitly Long time
You obviously ran out of time, but I agree with what you were trying to write.
@10665
"Billions of potentially crucial branches rejected on the grounds of a zero depth evaluation."
++ The ICCF (grand)masters use far more than zero depth.
Those draws are draws indeed.
It is ridiculous to question that.
You cannot ask them to play on until a 50-moves draw.
Chess could be solved in the way that we could map every possible move and counter move.
Except I didn't know what you were trying to write. I think humans could possibly solve it (though probably with some computer assistance) in time, but not by mapping every possible move and counter move. And I really doubt humans will ever have a strong solution.
@10666
"Those games were all at 5 sec fixed time per move"
++ So you reject correspondence games at 5 days/move and rely on blitz games of 5 s/moves...
"blunder rate at 35 min per move was greater than its blunder rate at 1 sec per move"
++ nonsense
@10666
"Those games were all at 5 sec fixed time per move"
++ So you reject correspondence games at 5 days/move and rely on blitz games of 5 s/moves...
No, I reject your conclusions from those games.
"blunder rate at 35 min per move was greater than its blunder rate at 1 sec per move"
++ nonsense
Go through the games with the Nalimov and Syzygy tables, as I did. They're more reliable than your big red telephone.
@10665
"Billions of potentially crucial branches rejected on the grounds of a zero depth evaluation."
++ The ICCF (grand)masters use far more than zero depth.
Those draws are draws indeed.
It is ridiculous to question that.
You cannot ask them to play on until a 50-moves draw.
Neither what we can or cannot ask them to do, nor the result in the unlikely event they did it would have any bearing on the correct evaluation of the positions.
The results of a bunch of people playing chess are completely irrelevant to solving chess (even ICCF chess).
@10665Those draws are draws indeed.
It is ridiculous to question that.
You cannot ask them to play on until a 50-moves draw.
This shows a lack of understandig for what a proof is. To say we have solved chess is to say we know all methods that always lead to a specified result. Your logic is trying to prove a negative. "All dogs i have seen have four legs, therfore three leged dogs dont exist".
But note. This is not relevant to the question if chess can be solved. It can. It just require insanly much more computing power
Chess could be solved in the way that we could map every possible move and counter move.
Except I didn't know what you were trying to write. I think humans could possibly solve it (though probably with some computer assistance) in time, but not by mapping every possible move and counter move. And I really doubt humans will ever have a strong solution.
In that case you can never realy say you have solved it, because it Will always be a move unacounted for.
Chess could be solved in the way that we could map every possible move and counter move.
Except I didn't know what you were trying to write. I think humans could possibly solve it (though probably with some computer assistance) in time, but not by mapping every possible move and counter move. And I really doubt humans will ever have a strong solution.
In that case you can never realy say you have solved it, because it Will always be a move unacounted for.
Not true. I can post you a reliable method of winning any winning KRK position that accounts for all possible opponent's moves but doesn't map every possible move and counter move.
There are many such expositions, though some don't reliably win under competition rules.
@10656
"Proof?" ++ Because the 2 ICCF (grand)masters after ample consultation of their engines agreed on the draw. Even I can see those are 2 draws.
"we investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong" ahh logic.