Chess will never be solved, here's why

Sorry to have to explain this to you, but since your entire worldview is based on hierarchies of intelligence, you're not really capable of seeing the world the way normal people do...

Elroch (and a number of other posters would also qualify) is someone who has earned some respect over time...but he's a peer, effectively. You, on the other hand, have proven countless times that you are not up to snuff...and you feel the same way yourself, which is why it irks you so much that you have rendered yourself ineligible to post in threads you long to be accepted in...sad, but oh so very true.

Apply Occam's Razor to both "narratives" and it quickly becomes obvious which is real.

I'm a retired software development director who helped the internet grow and ergo dislikes those who make the internet an annoying place with lots of misinformation.

You're supposedly a philosopher who is expert in every subject, a child prodigy who has a 169IQ and wields paranormal powers. Formerly the best debater on Facebook. A lone crusader who is persecuted by a malicious cartel.

Hamsters are smarter than some humans

Link your "strategy", or summarize it for everyone...I mean, you should know the basics of it, yes? Concrete steps for moving forward, mind you, not some meadering pontificating.

#11760

To be precise, some hamsters are smarter than some humans. A hamster that thought @Optimissed would gain anything by being lectured to would not be the sharpest tool in the hamster toolbox.

The purpose of exposition is not always to change/effect the target of said exposition.

Excuse me for saying it, but it does read remarkably like meandering pontification.

I would indeed tend to remember it, if you had actually posted this type of thing previously.

Still, what you posted now does not lend itself to anything coherent or remotely actionable. It sound a lot like what a storeowner of a crystal and sacred sound shop in Austin, Texas once said to me about crystals and how their vibrations sync with the human soul...

I didn't buy anything at that store, and I'm not buying here, either.

What are your proposed middle game types and what criteria are requirements for each? This is just a set of surface level musings without them.

I know. To identify the "dynamic structures" let's use a neutral network with 65 million parameters, and then train it using autoplay and Monte Carlo search to a similar strength to the top chess engine.

Ah, Leelachess has already done it, following AlphaZero's lead.

tygxc probably tells himself he believes what he is saying.
But I'm suggesting that whenever somebody keeps pushing illogic or disinformation or outright dishonesty like O does - that somebody ends up neither caring nor attending to his/her truth/lack of same nor honesty/dishonesty nor accuracy/inaccuracy.
With personalities like O's - truth and honesty are seen as weakness or a kind of submission.
O believes he gets a kind of authority by contantly pushing his falsehoods.
But then bitterly complains as he constantly encounters such 'authority' not existing.
In other words - it doesn't work. He is masochistic.
But for some people - with some audiences - constant lying does work.
Like for the infamous Orange Fatso - in another country.

@11684

"Chess will likely never be solved due to its immense complexity and the astronomical number of possible game variations."
++ Chess has 10^44 legal positions, of which 10^38 without underpromotions to pieces not previously captured, and of which Sqrt (10^38 / 10,000) = 10^17 are relevant to weakly solving Chess, as Schaeffer did for Checkers.

The ongoing ICCF World Championship finals considered
90*10^6 positions/s/server * 2 servers/finalist * 17 finalists * 3600 s/h * 24 h/d * 365.25 d/a * 2 a
= 1.9*10^17 positions.
So the effort is commensurate with the requirement and the 108 draws out of 108 games are at least part of the weak solution of Chess.

Clearly then your time has come...publish your paper and declare chess weakly solved. That would be utterly amazing to watch unfold...

You realy like describing yourself

I'm begining to see why dio messes with you it is halarious

Yup solved by a 400 good on you lol

Good luck solving 3000 level chess lol

At 4000 elo you solve chess like a 400 at 3000 elo you solve chess like a 3000

At stockfish elo (around 4000) you solve chess like stockfish

Just because you can "solve " chess doesn't mean you do it correctly

And most of the time the higher the elo you are the better you are than your opponent but not always (proof)

Like go play against stockfish maybe you'll beat it after 900+ games

@11663

"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"
++ Because of redundancy. In the 108 draws out of 108 games of the ongoing ICCF World Championship several ways to draw were found:
108 sequences of legal moves starting from the initial position and ending in draws.

Elroch is trolling with his suggestion that the first moves of all 108 games are wrong and that 1 a4 wins for white. Demanding game trees for 1 a4 or 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? is not rigor, it is stupid.

Now let us assume some white win would exist after 1 e4.
We have 2 games with 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 that draw.
3 e5 could be a white win (1), so these 2 games would contain 2 errors.
We have 15 games with 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3/Nc3 that draw.
2 c3 could be a white win (2), so these 15 games would contain 2 errors.
We have 6 games with 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Nxe5/d4 that draw.
3 Nc3 could be a white win (3), so these 6 games would contain 2 errors.
We have 15 games with 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5/Bc4 that draw.
3 Nc3 could be a white win (4), so these 15 games would contain 2 errors.

So this would not mean 1 win, but 4 wins to be found and 2 + 15 + 6 + 15 = 38 games to contain 2 errors and all 17 finalists to be wrong.
That would lead to an error distribution of 70 - 0 - 38 - 0 instead of 108 - 0 - 0 - 0

It is not plausible to have 70 games with 0 error and 38 games with 2 errors and 0 with 1 error.
That would require all errors to come in pairs and none unpaired.
There are some arguments for some errors to come in pairs, but not all errors.

yep. its not worth responding to either big O.