Tygxc are you also just ignoring all of the articles I sent explaining how scientific proof is a lie and completely different than a math proof?
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Feb 17, 2023
0
#8703
MARattigan wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Again, there are topics where this distinction is crucial (not just strong solution of chess), but a small amount of attention to efficiency in seeking a weak solution of chess (what we almost all agree is this central topic of this forum, with an accepted standard definition) means that the distinction does not matter - the possibility of repetition getting in the way of a winning line only appears when you have taken an unnecessarily long route to the solution.
I agree that if you actually intend to weakly solve competition rules chess using a forward search that the repetitions can be eliminated, but not I think using an unmodified version of Stockfish to do the basic work (as @tygxc plans to do in his non solution). You still wouldn't get anywhere of course, not even with seven maids with 7 mops. And you can't get away with using only ply count 0 positions, naturally.
I would not object to using Stockfish for finding candidate moves. Beyond that, it has no purpose.
Elroch wrote:
Again, there are topics where this distinction is crucial (not just strong solution of chess), but a small amount of attention to efficiency in seeking a weak solution of chess (what we almost all agree is this central topic of this forum, with an accepted standard definition) means that the distinction does not matter - the possibility of repetition getting in the way of a winning line only appears when you have taken an unnecessarily long route to the solution.
Having just read the O.P. for the very first time, I think that is implying that the so-called weak solution is the important one. Therefore, you're probably right that we (most of us) agree with that. I certainly do, although I think really we know the solution, or I should say that we know we can be sure that a computer isn't going to improve on the present understanding that chess is drawn. Of course, that doesn't speak for everybody.
I think that the question of repetition was disposed of some time ago and, of course, it doesn't bear on any solution: either so called strong or weak. That is if the sensible position is taken, where we see solving as distinct from playing a game of chess, where such matters do come into consideration. As I pointed out, neither does a 50 move rule interfere with a solution. Anybody who thinks that it does is confusing a solution of chess with a game of chess.
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
Tygxc are you also just ignoring all of the articles I sent explaining how scientific proof is a lie and completely different than a math proof?
Can't really blame him since you don't know what you're talking about. Of course they are different things. One is deduction only and the other a combination of deduction and what is called induction, or the idea of drawing a generality from "anecdotal evidence", as all accounts of observational evidence, however accurate, are sometimes referred to online.
The problem is your lack of understanding of scientific proof.
Feb 17, 2023
0
#8706
Optimissed wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
Tygxc are you also just ignoring all of the articles I sent explaining how scientific proof is a lie and completely different than a math proof?
Can't really blame him since you don't know what you're talking about. Of course they are different things. One is deduction only and the other a combination of deduction and what is called induction, or the idea of drawing a generality from "anecdotal evidence", as all accounts of observational evidence, however accurate, are sometimes referred to online.
The problem is your lack of understanding of scientific proof.
That isn’t what proof by induction is:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction
how about you go ask your son if the articles I sent were wrong
3harath wrote:
Chess is a game of immense complexity, with an enormous number of possible positions and moves. The total number of legal positions in chess is estimated to be around 10^43, and the number of possible games is even greater than that. This means that it is virtually impossible to solve chess in the sense of determining the optimal move in every possible position, even with the most powerful computers. While it is true that chess engines and AI have achieved superhuman levels of play, there is still a vast space of unexplored possibilities, and new opening variations and tactics are constantly being discovered. In addition, the human element of the game means that even the most sophisticated computer programs are not infallible, and can still make mistakes or be outplayed by skilled human opponents. Moreover, the goal of "solving" chess is not necessarily desirable or even meaningful. Part of the beauty of the game lies in its open-endedness and the fact that there is always room for creativity and improvisation. If chess were to be "solved," it would lose much of its appeal as a dynamic and evolving art form. In short, while chess may continue to evolve and be studied for centuries to come, it is unlikely to ever be fully "solved" in the sense of exhausting all of its possibilities and nuances.
Turns out that if you make a set of arbitrary assumptions, you can simply decide that 10^43 becomes 10^37 eliminating 999,999 out of every 1 million positions, and then take the square root of *that* (you know, just because, it has been done before for some other problem and worked) and multiply by 10 and the number becomes 10^17, then you apportion those positions to cloud computing with fuzzily defined "nodes" that do not correspond to positions one to one, add 3 GM lab assistants that are more accurate than the best chess engines, and the answer to chess is only 5 years away...*if* you put up $3 million dollars and follow Tygxc's method absolutely correctly 
.
I know, hard to believe it is that simple and logical.
Optimissed wrote:
elroch has 147393 posts
Elroch >10,000 posts/year
Tygxc >5,000 posts/year
Optimissed >2,865 posts/year
Btickler >1,675 posts/year
From this, we can clearly deduce the following...
1. Elroch is twice the scientist and mathematician that Tygxc is
2. Optimissed trolls 1.7x as often as I post
@9021
"The total number of legal positions in chess is estimated to be around 10^43"
++ 10^44 positions are legal,
and 10^38 if we restrict promotion to either a queen, or a previously captured piece.
"the number of possible games is even greater" ++ Between 10^29241 and 10^34082
"to solve chess in the sense of determining the optimal move in every possible position"
++ That would be strongly solving Chess to a 32-men table base, beyond present technology.
However, weakly solving Chess: proving black has at least one path to a draw against all white opposition is doable with 3 cloud engines of 10^9 nodes/s piloted by humans during 5 years.
"If chess were to be solved, it would lose much of its appeal" ++ Yes, like Checkers.
@9024
"not object to using Stockfish for finding candidate moves. Beyond that, it has no purpose."
++ Stockfish serves 3 purposes:
- generate white candidate moves
- rank white candidate moves for the best first heuristic
- find the single black response to tentatively reach a 7-men endgame table base draw
Feb 18, 2023
0
#8712
“However, weakly solving Chess: proving black has at least one path to a draw against all white opposition is doable with 3 cloud engines of 10^9 nodes/s piloted by humans during 5 years”.
You keep claiming this. But you have never provided any accurate calculations for this.
Feb 18, 2023
0
#8713
Optimissed it’s rich to here you claiming I don’t understand something while literally also claiming the misconceptions listed.
Feb 18, 2023
0
#8714
Tygxc the definition of a node you gave is different from the definition you use in your ‘calculations’
@9036
"the definition of a node you gave is different from the definition you use in your calculations"
++ No, in the calculations I use the definition I provided as in the link I gave.
Feb 18, 2023
0
#8716
We already have computers playing chess and they play with 99% accuracy for ~1 min/ move given 10^9 nodes/sec. You saw that statistic and calculated 10^17 /10^9 but that’s objectively incorrect. It doesn’t calculate 10^9 moves / sec it uses 10^9 notes/sec to make a SINGLE move.
Feb 18, 2023
0
#8717
“No, in the calculations I use the definition I provided as in the link I gave”
You divided 10^17 by 10^9.
by definition, you aren’t calculating nodes.
Feb 18, 2023
0
#8718
Tygxc why do you think it took 10^14 positions to weakly solve checkers? Why wasn’t it the square root of 10^20?
Feb 18, 2023
0
#8719
You still also haven’t looked at the articles I gave that explicitly explained how it is a misconception that science proofs exist, or that they are in any way similar to how math is done
@9034
"But you have never provided any accurate calculations for this."
++ I did, but I do it again on your request.
Chess has 10^44 legal positions, but the vast majority of these has 3 or more rooks or bishops on each side as in the 3 random samples. Such positions cannot result from optimal play by both sides. The only reason to underpromote to a rook or a bishop is to avoid stalemate, so it only makes sense for a side that already is winning.
Thus 10^37 legal positions with promotions restricted to pieces previously captured is a better starting point to estimate.
It is a bit too strict: positions with 3 or 4 queens happen in perfect games with optimal play from both sides, as we know from ICCF WC Finals draws.
Multiply by 10 to include such positions: 10^37 * 10 = 10^38.
A random sample of 10,000 positions as counted by Gourion shows none can result from optimal play by both sides either. That leaves 10^38 / 10^4 = 10^34 positions.
Instead of all black responses weakly solving Chess only calls for 1 black way to draw against all white opposition
That leaves Sqrt (10^34) = 10^17 positions.
3 cloud engines of 10^9 nodes/s each calculate in 5 years
10^9 nodes/s/engine * 3 engines * 3600 s/h * 24 h * 365.25 d/a * 5 a = 4.7 * 10^17 nodes
Thus 3 cloud engines of 10^9 nodes/s can in 5 years weakly solve Chess.
That is also what GM Sveshnikov said:
Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess.
Tygxc you don’t have the right to claim that it isn’t a sufficiently strong tournament.