I don't need a link. A brain works better.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
MARattigan wrote:
I don't need a link. A brain works better.
I report MARattigan here for having a missing link
May 28, 2024
0
#8004
tygxc wrote:
@10707
"I dont know if 7"
++ Yes we have 7-men endgame table bases. Work on 8-men table bases is in progress.
Some trolls come up with castling rights and nearly triggered 3-fold repetition or 50-moves rules all besides the question. They cannot come up with a reasonable game that would lead to such a pathologic exception.
Here's a position that wouldn't be solved in the 32 man tablebase you refer to in the previous post if castling rights were excluded.
And here's one that won't be solved in the 8 man tablebases under construction.
But whether you regard those as reasonable positions is known only to yourself.
The point is what you think is a reasonable game has sweet FA to do with the definition of "solved", whether ultra-weakly, weakly or strongly.
Why do you keep quoting the definitions and pontificating over them when in practice you just totally ignore them?
May 28, 2024
0
#8006
Optimissed wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
mrhjornevik wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@10707
Some trolls come up with castling rights and nearly triggered 3-fold repetition or 50-moves rules all besides the question.
By definition If ypu dont have the matrix its not weakly solved? It is ultra weakly solved?
Lets say white has the rook in a rook king endgame. I agree we dont need a matrix for every move white can do, but we need it for the shortest possible win and every move black can do to stall. Now we already have the strategy so I dont think writing the matrix is benifitial, but without it the endgame remains soft solved.
It's still strongly solved under basic rules according to the definition . But not under competition rules. For a simple example:
The above is a rather incompetent attempt to mate myself with a rook. The FEN for that final position is 1R6/8/8/8/8/1K6/8/1k6 w - - 96 49
If I ask Syzygy what to do next:
https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=1R6/8/8/8/8/1K6/8/1k6_w_-_-_96_49
It tells me White is winning with DTZ 3. That's in ply and adding it to the 96 ply count still falls within the magic 100 ply count that represents 50 moves. Nevertheless White cannot actually win under competition rules because if he plays 49.Kc8 he draws by repetition and anything else draws under the 50 move rule. So the Syzygy tablebase can't handle that position.
I'm wondering why you expect anyone to understand this. It's clearly nonsense since it seems to be linked to a game where the winning side was deliberately playing for a draw under the 50 move rule or whatever.
I wasn't expecting you to understand it @Optimissed, just everybody else except @tygxc.
May 28, 2024
0
#8007
even if chess is solved, no one would have to worry cuz there is no way someone even Magnus could memorize that much moves
May 28, 2024
0
#8008
Optimissed wrote:
...
I didn't try hard to understand it because I assumed there was nothing to understand. ...
I think that's the main cause of your problem.
May 28, 2024
0
#8009
Optimissed wrote:
mrhjornevik wrote:
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
For practical purposes we can regard the permutations in chess as infinite. That's a very different thing from saying that the number of permutations is actually infinite. It isn't something I would expect the gang to understand.
That's because it's nonsense. Finite numbers are all TINY compared to aleph-null (the first infinite number). An infinite number is not just "very big", it has a different character to every finite number.
May 28, 2024
0
#8010
Finite numbers are all TINY compared to almost every other finite number (but not as tiny).
May 28, 2024
0
#8011
tygxc wrote:
@10678
See Figure 2 from 1 s/move to 1 min/move reduces errors from 11.8% to 2.1%.
that doesnt mean anything, thats two points on a graph, and you dont even have the right y values.
May 28, 2024
0
#8012
tygxc wrote:
@10703
"typical 40 legal choices"
++ That is an illusion. There are average at most 3 legal choices that do not transpose.
Proof is by the pigeonhole principle.
There are no more legal chess positions than there are legal chess positions.
I go with the number 10^38 positions without underpromotions to pieces not previously taken, but you can take the whole number of 10^44 legal positions if you want.
10^38 = 3^76 = 3^(2*38)
That means 3 non transposing choices per move reach all legal positions in 38 moves.
Coincidently an average ICCF World Championship Finals game lasts 38 moves.
So 3 is the number and 40 is not.
Suppose transposition reduces the effective branching factor to merely 2 (this is unrealistic without rejecting moves based on zero ply evaluation, but let's just pretend), then your 10^17 positions will be reached in a mere 56 moves. Top engine games using a tablebase typically take longer than this to resolve.
In truth, it's much worse than this, because the effective branching factor is much higher once you DON'T ignore any of the opponent's moves on the basis of a zero ply evaluation.
Optimissed wrote:
Translation services provided by: DiogenesDue
I didn't try hard to understand it because I assumed there was nothing to understand.
"I didn't try to understand it because I rarely understand the arguments of the people I oppose, so might as well save time."
I assumed that because I don't have a high opinion of your efforts here and I assume you're trying deliberately to confuse people.
"Your argument confused me."
That's me being charitable to you.
"That's what happens in most arguments, I get confused when it goes in depth, and start making up stuff to compensate."
Generally, most of your comments seem pointless and designed to con people into thinking they may have a point to them. I don't think there's any other reasonable or rational way to interpret your efforts.
"I have to interpret things this way to maintain my fragile ego."
I think that certain other people tolerate you and see you as a positive because they know that in return for that, you will support their rather miserable efforts to convince people that they themselves know what they're talking about.
"I hate everyone that knows more than I do."
All I know is that if you were knowledgeable and intelligent then it would show.
"If you are a knowledgeable and intelligent poster, I will try to tear you down and play king of the hill by trying to elevate myself above you. Tearing down is easier for me than displaying knowledge/expertise, so, expect more of that end of things."
May 28, 2024
0
#8014
minhduong0130 wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Finite numbers are all TINY compared to almost every other finite number (but not as tiny).
YOU made 2 mistakes. First, infinite is spelled wrong and there are only 1 infinity
1. I didn't spell "infinite".
2. There are infinitely more infinities than natural numbers if you want there to be.
3. "There are only 1" is a contradiction in terms.
May 28, 2024
0
#8015
Optimissed wrote:
minhduong0130 wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Finite numbers are all TINY compared to almost every other finite number (but not as tiny).
YOU made 2 mistakes. First, infinite is spelled wrong and there are only 1 infinity
He believes in Cantor's ideas. This is someone who pretends he only believes things that can be proven so something seems a bit inequitable there. Cantor pretended that infinity is something it isn't because, like some other ambitious people, he believed he could con mathematicians into believing him. At the time he was rejected but now, some people are saying he was brilliant. He was actually insane, by the way. Ended his life in an asylum or something.
This is an expression of your ignorance. The style and the thinking it reveals is inferior to the way mathematicians think and reason, and how they are motivated.
You won't find a competent mathematician who would agree with you, and you can be sure many of them are a LOT more intelligent than you.
Yes, we can say that it can never be solved but if you play Coc mod unlimited everything then you are going to enjoy more. You can download it here : https://clashofclansproapk.com/
Optimissed wrote:
Do you realise that I think you're a fool in exactly the same way that you think tygxc is a fool and tell him that too? You have a near-zero ability to understand concepts that seem foreign to you. Hence your attempt to teach me relativistic philosophy, because you couldn't make your brain understand what I was talking about, if you recall from a year or two ago. What you might say you think of my ability is of no concern to me. Hiding behind people the way you do and getting them to troll people you know what you are is contemptible.
You think anyone that doesn't agree with you is a fool...it's your primary character trait, in fact. Examples litter these 500+ pages. Contemptible, yes, but you are also pitiable...you've been like this for 50+ years and nobody has shown you the way out.
How exactly would anyone be able to say that I hide behind anyone? Demonstrably the opposite. So, in your delusional world, I hide behind other posters, but somehow *am* also the other posters in secret, all while being the servant of another, who hides behind me...perhaps you can keep extending this into a circle, like Ouroboros eating its own tail.
May 28, 2024
0
#8018
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
mrhjornevik wrote:
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
For practical purposes we can regard the permutations in chess as infinite. That's a very different thing from saying that the number of permutations is actually infinite. It isn't something I would expect the gang to understand.
That's because it's nonsense. Finite numbers are all TINY compared to aleph-null (the first infinite number). An infinite number is not just "very big", it has a different character to every finite number.
It's a shame, really, that you don't have the ability to understand the English language, isn't it.
There are no infinite numbers, you infinite dork. Infinity is an abstract concept
Finite numbers are abstract concepts too. I understand that while "3" is an abstract concept that you might be able to cope with, aleph-null is not, but that is a fact about you, not about numbers.
and in my opinion you are quoting that crazy person again, whom you admire but who just made it all up. Cantor. It equates to you arguing from authority, so how about having another try.
Hold your breath when you're reading this. "For practical purposes we can regard the permutations in chess as infinite. That's a very different thing from saying that the number of permutations is actually infinite." Do you actually enjoy making a fool of yourself?
This is only valid if you think it is "practical" to be able to infer every single possible falsehood by simple deduction. THAT is the price of assuming a falsehood, which is why it is a really bad idea.
May 28, 2024
0
#8019
minhduong0130 wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Finite numbers are all TINY compared to almost every other finite number (but not as tiny).
YOU made 2 mistakes. First, infinite is spelled wrong and there are only 1 infinity
This is very wrong, and I can give you a real life practical example.
The number off Odd numbers are infinite, the number of Even numbers are infinite, and they are the same sice of infinite. However the number of all the odd numbers + all the Even numbers are also the same infinite. This is called countable infinity. Ie start by making two lists. 1 (Odd) then two (Even) and you Will see that these two lists both are equaly Long.
However, make two new lists. On one list all the natural numbers (1, 2, 3) etc. On the other writa all the rational numbers. (1, 1.1, 1.01, 1.001) ypu Will now have to cont til infinity before you reach 2. So one list Will be longer than the other.
The practical eexcample comes from computer science. A computer can always (if given enought time) solve any problem that takes a countable infinity amount of time to solve. However, a computer can never (Even with infinite amount of time) solve a problem that takes a uncountable infinity amount of time to solve.
May 28, 2024
0
#8020
mrhjornevik wrote:
However, make two new lists. On one list all the natural numbers (1, 2, 3) etc. On the other writa all the rational numbers. (1, 1.1, 1.01, 1.001) ypu Will now have to cont til infinity before you reach 2. So one list Will be longer than the other.
The practical eexcample comes from computer science.
You are incorrect: the RATIONAL numbers are countable. It's the IRRATIONAL numbers that are uncountable (i.e. a larger infinity). Did you mean to say "irrational" rather than rational?
Just because one way to count the rationals does not work, that does not mean another does not.
Here is a hint how to count the rationals and show they have the same cardinality as the natural numbers. The basic trick is to order them by the sum of the absolute values of their numerator and denominator. There are only a finite number of rational numbers with a given such sum.
Note that it only does all the positive rationals, but you will be easily able to extend it to rationals with both signs (by alternating between the two sets)!
Just my two cents