@11566
"how about black blunders instead"
++ You cannot make an error in a lost position.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Jun 7, 2024
0
#8703
tygxc wrote:
@11564
"they had two different players"
++ The ICCF WC Finals has 17 different players.
It was a race with one horse with 17 fleas on its back.
Jun 7, 2024
0
#8704
Elroch wrote:
Is your new plan to fill the forum with irrelevant uncertainty and count that as a proof, @tygxc?
Hint: go learn what a proof is.
that's why i was trying to get tygxc to reveal his math education. when I was 10 i had a better understanding of proof than tygxc does.
tygxc wrote:
@11566
"how about black blunders instead"
++ You cannot make an error in a lost position.
Black blunders2??
White blunders and is losing 2??
Black blunders back and is losing 2??
White blunders and is losing 2 ??
Black spots the winning move with no errors 0??
Total of 8
@11571
Each game has like 80 positions. For each position they calculated 5 days, considering many alternative positions. A game lasts 2 years.
'I have two servers, each capable of calculating more than 90 million positions a second.'
https://new.uschess.org/edwards-32nd-ICCF-ch
2 servers/finalist * 17 finalists * 90*10^6 positions/s/server * 3600 s/h * 24 h/d * 365 d/a * 2 a = 1.9 * 10^17 positions
Jun 7, 2024
0
#8707
Proofs are not judged on how much electricity they used to make them. They are judged on rigor.
Hilariously, you say that you are able to play perfect chess as long as you are assisted by an engine that blunders all the time in tablebase positions and a human that has had a good run with his engine and would blunder more often in the same positions.
@11573
"17 fleas"
Insulting ICCF (grand)masters as fleas shows you know nothing about correspondence play.
You should really sign up for an ICCF WC qualifier and get beaten so you understand.
@11574
"when I was 10" ++ Last year?
Jun 7, 2024
0
#8710
tygxc wrote:
@11571
Each game has like 80 positions. For each position they calculated 5 days, considering many alternative positions. A game lasts 2 years.
'I have two servers, each capable of calculating more than 90 million positions a second.'
https://new.uschess.org/edwards-32nd-ICCF-ch
2 servers/finalist * 17 finalists * 90*10^6 positions/s/server * 3600 s/h * 24 h/d * 365 d/a * 2 a = 1.9 * 10^17 positions
its a node, not a full positional calculation
maybe if you actually READ the articles you cited you would have known that.
but ive only been pointing that out for months.
Jun 7, 2024
0
#8711
tygxc wrote:
@11574
"when I was 10" ++ Last year?
imagine being called out on your logical fallacies by an 11-year-old.
why arent you addressing the 4 basic facts that i keep reminding you that you have wrong? (there are of course, many others, but i notice that these four you dont even acknowledge)
tygxc wrote:
@11574
"when I was 10" ++ Last year?
Womp womp
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@11574
"when I was 10" ++ Last year?
imagine being called out on your logical fallacies by an 11-year-old.
why arent you addressing the 4 basic facts that i keep reminding you that you have wrong?
Even worse a 16 year old
Jun 7, 2024
0
#8714
tygxc wrote:
@11573
"17 fleas"
Insulting ICCF (grand)masters as fleas shows you know nothing about correspondence play.
You should really sign up for an ICCF WC qualifier and get beaten so you understand.
elroch you made the mistake of using an analogy with abstract reasoning with tygxc. tygxc cant follow that.
Jun 7, 2024
0
#8715
Optimissed wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@11534
"the sheer number of possible positions" ++ There are 10^44 legal chess positions,
of which 10^37 without promotions to pieces not previously captured.
Of these 10^17 are relevant to weakly solving chess, as Schaeffer did for Checkers.
"calculate every potential outcome" ++ It is not necessary to calculate everything:
weakly solving chess only needs 1 black reply to all reasonable white moves.
I think that if you would pause and think for yourself for a moment, you would realise that in order to find that one black reply to each move by white, it is necessary to investigate very thoroughly quite a large number of black replies to every white move. I mentioned five candidate moves earlier (a couple of weeks since) but I also mentioned that to do the job properly, maybe nine candidate moves would suffice. That would be your "weak solution".
Here the quotation marks are appropriate, since the term is being used incorrectly by @tygxc, based it seems on his lack of understanding of the nature of the solution of checkers.
A weak solution strategy for white requires a response to EVERY legal move by black. None may be ignored, even if Steinitz didn't like them. That's the DEFINITION of a weak solution.
All perfect numbers are even
...and i think ending in 6 or 8 right ?...i mean so far ?
i LUV 127 !...as i heard it might be the only triple M prime out there...and i mean out there. u know. like all by itself ? kinda like me 
.
2ⁿ - 1 = 3 (n is 2)
2ⁿ - 1 = 7 (n is 3)
2ⁿ - 1 = 127 (n is 7)
2ⁿ - 1 = 170 141 183 460 469 231 731 687 303 715 884 105 727 (n is 127) ...or s/t like that
Jun 7, 2024
0
#8717
@tygxc never answer the question "if a computer checking x number of moves fail to find a win, how can you know a computer checking x +1 moves would also fail to find a win"?
Making the whole discusion about number of possibilities redundant
tygxc wrote:
"You are at this point thinking..." ++ No, I am not thinking
I will use this opportunity to selectively quote and respond, ala Tygxc...
I agree.
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
I think that if you would pause and think for yourself for a moment, you would realise that in order to find that one black reply to each move by white, it is necessary to investigate very thoroughly quite a large number of black replies to every white move. I mentioned five candidate moves earlier (a couple of weeks since) but I also mentioned that to do the job properly, maybe nine candidate moves would suffice. That would be your "weak solution".
Here the quotation marks are appropriate, since the term is being used incorrectly by @tygxc, based it seems on his lack of understanding of the nature of the solution of checkers.
A weak solution strategy for white requires a response to EVERY legal move by black. None may be ignored, even if Steinitz didn't like them. That's the DEFINITION of a weak solution.
Ironically, Optimissed always argued that "weak/strong" solving was poor terminology, and here we see why....two posters that insist on assuming that a weak solution involves less rigor because their thinking is too fuzzy to keep the definition of "weakly solved" in mind. No, the terms are descriptive of the outcomes of the process (solution of the initial position vs. solution of all possible positions). There's nothing "weak" about the methodology, and no wriggle room is granted for silly premises like taking 1 to 4 moves and only checking those, then discarding the rest. The rigor that must be applied to the narrower goal is the same...proven responses across the board (no pun intended).
Optimissed wrote:
You're the paranoic though. I'm just mentioning possible scenarios which continue to look more and more possible the more you continue to deny them so ferociously.
In other words, you are responding with paranoia. Whose posts sound more "ferocious" here? Lol. Not mine.
I do know the difference between mentioning possibilities and paranoia and I know which example is which. If it weren't "illegal" here, would you be so bothered and upset, and yet it certainly seems that you're drawing attention to yourself by the personal attacks you make all the time, which could be the result of paranoia. You haven't answered some very pertinent questions I asked you, such as why do you never seem to fall out with some people whom, in the normal run of things, would be your prime targets.
I don't answer your paranoid questions because they are ludicrous and not worth anyone's time. Your ham-handed attempts to coerce Elroch or I to handle your Playerafar "issue" for you look pretty pitiful.
Hint ... it really isn't going to be because you're allied politically, since there are enough differences, which may well be manufactured ones but we still have to go by what we see.
Nobody sees this cabal with an established hierarchy and corrupted moderators etc. but you. That's the point. Your delusions are yours alone. Other people might be feeding you ignorant and illogical theories, but only you have turned it into some twisted narrative that passes for your reality.
I understand Big's concern but it isn't something to be concerned with, provided you don't troll. That proviso does need to be followed, however. Otherwise you are pulling the rug from under your own feet.
You don't get to make "provisos" here. That's another delusion you seem to have problems with. I will continue to post, and you will continue to post (and get yourself muted by your own device). It's been a decade, when will you finally learn that you are just another member of the rank and file here...?
@11560
"Almost is not a weak solution almost is still almost"
++ The 107 ICCF WC Finals draws form at least part of a weak solution of Chess.
Not yet complete, but redundant: more than 1 way to draw.
they form 1*10^-15 of it. what about the other 10^17.