Where is the proof to that?
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.
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.
yep. its not worth responding to either big O.
"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"
not trolling at all, you just have no idea what demanding mathematical rigor is.
"it is stupid" isnt an argument, sorry. It is rigor literally by definition. if you had taken a mathematical proof class you would have known this.
why do you continue to ignore the many objective lies of yours that I (and others) point out?
"""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""
thats not an argument LMFAO
your entire "logic" is the claim that the computer is just REALLLY strong
So if I draw with my friend 108 times in a row, no computer can beat us?
by your logic yes.
you will deny that that is your logic, but thats because you arent actually operating on a logical plane so you dont actually pay attention to the claims you make and their ramifications.
"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"
not trolling at all, you just have no idea what demanding mathematical rigor is.
"it is stupid" isnt an argument, sorry. It is rigor literally by definition. if you had taken a mathematical proof class you would have known this.
why do you continue to ignore the many objective lies of yours that I point out?
@tygxc needs to tell the authors of Stockfish to stop it from wasting time analysing variations after 2. Ba6. At present it shows that it is a weaker player than him by keeping analysing deeper and never reaching an evaluation that indicates certainty about the result.
My conclusion about unassisted @tygxc's chess strength can be verified by a 149 game match against Stockfish where I predict a victory by 1 point due to his superior ability to fail to analyse variations.
@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.
Yes. Given that the analysis has not been stored, that provides a set of candidate moves for a few thousand nodes from around 10^30 needed. Admittedly that means it is not so much part of a solution as a little help to find a solution (like the chosen moves of the Chinook engine provided candidates to help find a solution of checkers).
Before any attempt to disagree, you first need to confirm that you have learnt what a rigorous mathematical proof is, and how the proof that checkers is a draw qualifies as one according to the strict requirements for rigor, presuming no errors exist in its coding.
this forum is crazy...
It contains craziness.
Craziness in a forum that contains crazy people is not considered crazy as crazy people commonly use crazy vocabulary which allows them to think that it isn`t crazy.
hi
Because, of course, you know I can out-argue you easily and that I also understand more about the subject than you. Otherwise, you'd treat me as you do tygxc. He understands more than you also. Clearly the monkey understands nothing but sometimes pretends he does and rambles on infinitely, displaying his existential angst for all to applaud. The hamster understands more but he hasn't a logical mind and doesn't do logical arguments. Never seen it, anyway. His strategy is to stop before he's made his killing point, because he underestimates our ability to understand an argument from zero valid premises. Or maybe overestimates our ability to join him in constructing one. Could be either or both.
I suppose you must be the mouse, considering your name here.
LMFAO LOL.
I had suspected that you were pissy about me ignoring you, but this confirms it. I'm going to go back to ignoring you with impunity now 
.
I actually read many of your posts, but theres literally zero substance for me to consider them worth responding. This one I chose to, not because of any substance, but because i found it so funny how easily you revealed the cards in your hand.
does a/o here know exactly how stockfish, AZ, leela, etc. comes to choose its move ? and also any comments on how NN'ing/AI & adv memory & stronger processors will change things.
also do ppl feel that a unbeatable engine solves chess ?...or does it need to win every game ? iows plz define 'solved'. and is this def agreed upon. thx...i hope.
btw they say stockfish blundered a known 7-table draw. lost to leela. s/t i find really wierd.
does a/o here know exactly how stockfish, AZ, leela, etc. comes to choose its move ? and also any comments on how NN'ing/AI & adv memory & stronger processors will change things.
also do ppl feel that a unbeatable engine solves chess ?...or does it need to win every game ? iows plz define 'solved'. and is this def agreed upon. thx...i hope.
btw they say stockfish blundered a known 7-table draw. lost to leela. s/t i find really wierd.
Im going to respond to this first because there are multiple people here who will spread misinformation. (optimissed, tygxc)
You've taken hold of quite the wrong end of the stick, mousey. I know you're going to ignore me because some of my posts are very much on topic and you don't have the ability to answer them well. All I've been doing is finding that out. I like to know whom I'm talking with and what motivates them, since there are lots of people who pretend and very few if any who genuinely attempt to communicate honestly.
You're all mouth and no content.
...he said, posting no content.
Maybe you could edify us all about how opening theory and endgame tablebases are "crystalized structures"...you know, try to turn that into some kind of real content instead of vague made-up fluff you tossed out when challenged about your false claims.
There is actually no such thing as winning an argument. It's not a game like chess, there is no independent objective arbiter.
What @Optimissed means when he praises his own arguing skills (I noticed he did not qualify this with any reference to being right) is that he can in all circumstances convince himself of his superiority over everyone else in every way that matters to him. I am not sure what he thinks about convincing other people, but he often makes bold proclamations about what other people think that are a very long way from reality.
Some people you can never convince in an argument. They are utterly invulnerable. Eg flat earthers. But essentially anyone whose ideas are not subject to any valid testing.
Others, you can never even get to understand what the argument is about.
Fact: Stockfish has never won the World Computer Chess Championship.
Komodo has won it most recent years, but in last year's competition Stoofvlees beat it.
A bit deceptive, since TCEC is generally regarded as the "real" WCCC, and Stockfish has done well in it. The last four finals have seen it against LCZero. It only won by 52:48 in seasons 24 and 25, but managed 57:43 in season 26. Leela picked up 17 wins though.
Dumme luete.
This is like someone posting "your stupid"...if you are trying to call someone/something dumb, but you misspell your own insult, well...
Yeah, explain your self
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