Chess will never be solved, here's why

You made a comment to me earlier. I answered you. Are you really no better than the rest of them (they are not high achievers here) or do you want to say something positive instead of just blending into the general mass of self-righteous pomposity, which exists in this thread? None of them are any good, which is why they're so full of themselves. If they had any ability they'd use it. They're all trying to impress you. Didn't you know? The whole boring, mindless bunch.

Just look at a few posts. You will see his expertise.

No, he pretends to be a mathematician. 

Look at his "calculations".

There's no alliances.  Tygxc is wrong.  You are wrong in your support of him and in your fight against the accepted terminology.  That does not make everybody else an "alliance", sorry, it just makes you two wrong .

We're not taking him seriously, merely trying to stop him spreading crap on the internet.

That seems to be reasonable, but it rules out the possibility of a solution by human ingenuity, which is still far in advance of any AI or supercomputer.

A bold comment given that ChatGPT is now passing doctorate and law exams .

I'm sure Tromp is perfectly aware of what I said. His bounty has zilch to do with competition rules; he calculates only basic rules positions (very well).

You don't appear to have realised that there's a difference between basic rules chess positions and competition rules chess positions. Reread what I wrote.

And Tromp still didn't say 10^44 if you read his postings. He doesn't think it's somewhat less; he thinks it's almost certainly more.

As I see it. @tygxc is a chess player who thinks the reasoning associated with playing chess will do for solving it - it's all chess, right?

Not at all.

I last heard Hamlet's soliloquy playing the incidental music for a school production of the same, some years ago now, but I can still remember it a lot better than ChatGPT.

What significant theorems have been proved so far by AI?

And obviously supercomputers are just faster shop assistants.

Nevertheless, those shop assistants already have surpassed human capabilities on the chess playing front.  The argument that they are merely machines that don't understand what they are doing is semantics.  We are also machines that don't really know what we are doing .  We create ways of describing what we think we are doing, but since we only perceive a tiny fraction of what is actually going on, those descriptions are essentially as bad as Chess.com's analysis narratives ("strong move that maintains an initiative", etc.).

Self-awareness is real, but also limited.

We discussed this before.  I don't care about competition rules.  I only care about basic chess.  Solving chess = solving basic chess.  If the solution only works for tournament rules, which are chess variants, by definition, it's not a solution of chess.  So I do know there's a difference, and the former is worthless to solve, because competition rules are subject to much more frequent change than the basic rules.  This seems pretty obvious.

As for Tromp, I am fine with using his 95% confidence interval along with 10^44, which he does say.  The order of magnitude is the only important consideration.  If you are perhaps kibitzing over 4.59*10^44 (which is 10^44.6, as I pointed out), then don't bother.  It's useless to argue that the number is not exact when we already agree it's not exact by accepting the 95% confidence interval.

Optimissed is a very good example of my point. 

AI has reached the current state from a starting point less than a century ago.  Take AlphaZero's machine learning in 4 hours to exceed centuries of humanity's built up knowledge of chess as an example.  That's the kind of curve you can expect from AI as well relative to humanity.  All else being equal, evolution via trial and error is never as fast as purposeful design.

Judging chess engines or AI by human standards of understanding (which effectively translates to "can it explain what it does in a way humans understand and articulate its choices") doesn't really mean much.  

Penrose is just another witchdoctor trying to hold on to his reputation in the face of modern medicine, at least in terms of the message of this work.  The fact that quantum entanglement gives possible room to posit that self awareness equals a human soul once again doesn't mean it's true.  Like chess being a draw, much scientific evidence leans in the other direction and has eliminated possibilities, not allowed for new ones.

It's always funny to see scientists stop just short of declaring that human beings are not special and uniquely gifted in the universe .  It's like they cannot make that last leap away from man being the center of the universe.

I like this take on it:

"The Emperor's New Mind does contain much interesting background material on computation, physics, mathematics, and other topics, but all this background material is simply to prepare the reader to understand Penrose's main argument. The main argument boils down to this: the human brain may exploit certain quantum mechanical phenomena, key to intelligence and/or consciousness, that effectively make the brain's activity uncomputable, and hence beyond the reach of Turing machines/classical computers. To allow for this, Penrose suggests that current models of quantum physics are flawed, and hints at how they might be modified.

Although Penrose's expertise and authority on physics is undisputed, many have found the ideas suggested in The Emperor's New Mind unconvincing and unnecessary, though admittedly plausible. Furthermore, even if Penrose turned out to be right, there is no reason why quantum computers would not be able to exploit the same quantum phenomena that the brain does, and thus become just as intelligent as humans. Thus, The Emperor's New Mind is really an argument against strong AI in classical computers, not against strong AI in artificially created systems."

You guys are all wrong. Chess.com could solve chess tomorrow if they weren't so busy trying to solve their own issues. When their bots aren't playing chess, they're hard at work on the solution. Why do you think there are so many of them? Then these Chess will never be solved threads will be moot.

by god martin will find that mate in one

I forgot the MUA HA HA!!

<<<<The argument that they are merely machines that don't understand what they are doing is semantics.  We are also machines that don't really know what we are doing .  We create ways of describing what we think we are doing, but since we only perceive a tiny fraction of what is actually going on, those descriptions are essentially as bad as Chess.com's analysis narratives ("strong move that maintains an initiative", etc.).

Really nothing like as bad as that (excepting @Optimissed).>>>>


I would think that's very accurate in that MOST of us don't know what we're doing. We aren't creative in that way and apparent creativity only consists of rearrangements of existing arrangements, like slightly reordering the sequence of notes in a piece of music. I know a rather rough Wiganer who's a  flea-market dealer, dying of cancer. He can spontaneously compose Rachmaninov-like pieces at the piano because he has a very good memory. He claims he had a photographic memory and I believe him. He can play to near concert level. But it's all a rearrangement of previous perceptions and memories. He owned dozens of pianos when I first met him, 25 years ago. I sold his Steinway for him when he was short of cash and didn't want to sell one of his houses.

Anyway, enough about my mother-in-law. He doesn't do new stuff. Anyone who can really think for themselves is a rarity and as such will always encounter a lot of resistance from self-appointed guardians of the status-quo, of which thread has more than its compliment because they tend to stick together and work in packs. (Very much an ego thing and they use self-protective mechanisms, of which we see a lot here.) It's interesting that there are informal regulatory bodies in every field of human creativity, of which these forums are one. I think there must be a psycho-dynamic reason, embedded in the human psyche as an instinct towards conventionality and a rejection of the new, which genuinely provides stability. In all aspects of human society and endeavour, there is tension between those two aspects of human nature and it's necessary for our survival and the survival of our societies that new ideas are resisted. So you're only fulfilling your appointed roles. That is, pretending to be creative and actually attempting to veto it. It's only to be expected. I ought to write a book on human thoughts and instincts. Maybe I will.

I once worked out that probably there are no more than 100,000 people at any one time, in the World, who are truly brilliant and who lead thought rather than follow it. As I pointed out, they often encounter resistance and occasionally they overcome it and completely change how people think, usually with the aid of a new product, which can consist of, say, an artistic movement or anything like that.