What do you mean by solved? There are computers that cannot be beaten already. Is that solved? Or just a measure of current technology? As time goes on more technology will allow everything to be solved so the answer is yes.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Optimissed wrote:
You're actually really jealous, hamster. If it wasn't a good post you'd have left it to be read on its own merits but you recognise that it shows all the efforts of your friends to be in error and that's enough for you. I don't think it can be refuted. Obviously not by you: I mean by someone who has a brain and can use it a bit. The point is that it is impossible to prove that even if a strong solution gave a definite result, it still couldn't be trusted to the degree of certainty that Elroch demands of the scientific side in the discussion. The argument I give against the possibility of a deductive proof is too strong, even though you won't understand why that is.
First...you are positing an algorithmic solution to the middlegame, not a strong solution by brute force. Stay on target.
Second...if somehow technology allowed for a brute force strong solution, you would not really be able to question the resulting complete 32-man tablebase (that would need to include castling et al, in a nod to Martiggan). The method proves out at the initial stages where it is easily checked, and there is no need to second guess it any more than you have to double check every time your calculator adds 2+2.
Third...if you have programmed an algorithmic solution that you believe works, it is easy enough to proves that it works by running the algorithm on select endgames that cover each of the algorithmic evaluation criteria established and comparing with whatever tablebases exist at that point in time. If it works, it will agree with the tablebases 100% of the time. So, it's not really a hard problem relative to the rest of the effort, which is immense.
Jun 11, 2024
0
#8924
finally some substance from opt, although you miss some context. The methodology of the program used to solve chess was never the main point of discussion with my fellow math majors. the point of discussion was when tygxc tried to operate on our field, when tygxc claim that HIS points were backed up by deductive proof.
In addition, we found that tygxc made many calculation errors.
- "In my opinion, the mathematics department isn't being constructive. There's not even a possible, projected method available for solving chess in a deductive fashion"
Just because there isnt a known solution for chess outside of brute force doesnt mean that tygxc isnt also making logical fallacies.
"At the end of that, in the unlikely case that it's successful, it still doesn't provide a deductive proof, since too many things could have gone wrong. A glitch somewhere that will never be found, an error in the programming, ..., whatever the result seemed to be. It wouldn't form a deductive proof."
we've gone over this before. there's a difference between a fallacious argument and a syntax error. and the way that maths proofs are constructed leaves little room for human error.
"It means that if the mathematics department sees futility in tygxc's beliefs on this subject, their own ideas are equally likely to be futile."
where'd you get this?
lack of framework in one area doesnt mean that theres no framework anywhere.
Ima be real you kind of missed most of my points.
the main issue is that tygxc is claiming his statements are mathematically rigorous.
Jun 11, 2024
0
#8925
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
This is for optimissed not you lmao
i know right BC665 ?...3rd ppl in are such wimps !
heres another ex..."Only according to yourself." (Doofus DDue)
i told u get out of here, yeah theres the occasional interesting bit of info but this forum is a WASTE.
SuperBikeQueen wrote:
What do you mean by solved? There are computers that cannot be beaten already. Is that solved? Or just a measure of current technology? As time goes on more technology will allow everything to be solved so the answer is yes.
Your question is answered on page 1 on the thread.
dasamething wrote:
no it isnt
How is it not solved???
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
i told u get out of here, yeah theres the occasional interesting bit of info but this forum is a WASTE.
It is ultimately a waste, but the phenom just demonstrated by SuperBikeQueen of arriving on the thread but not even reading the first pages shows why the crackpots have to be repeatedly refuted over time to prevent their insanity from spreading around. Not doing so eventually leads to bad results like most of the world believing that Kasparov has a 180 IQ, etc.
Imagine going to Reddit or something and one day reading a thread about solving chess and then seeing somebody say:
"I read an authority on the subject who says that the problem space can easily be reduced to 10^17 positions and who proved that the ICCF results already proves chess is weakly solved, and that seems to be the consensus because there is no opposition of note."
Cringeworthy, no?
dasamething wrote:
magnus solved it
You my friend are either a troll or nieve
I prefer to think a joker
It's actually a silly question... Right up there with topics of Religion and Politics. Like can God be proven to exist. Can Poverty be eliminated. It's all worthless conjecture and speculation and the answer is nobody knows and everyone thinks they are right. Anything MAN MADE can be solved with time and money. End of discussion. There, i ruined your silly post.
dasamething wrote:
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
dasamething wrote:
magnus solved it
You my friend are either a troll or nieve
I prefer to think a joker
this guy doesnt know im the Albert Einstien of chess
With a rating of 400 i even Albert Einstein was higher with his 1900 rating, I think you are Crap in the saying Crap for brains.
dasamething wrote:
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
dasamething wrote:
magnus solved it
You my friend are either a troll or nieve
I prefer to think a joker
this guy doesnt know im the Albert Einstien of chess
Ok Einstein meet newton
dasamething wrote:
what would you know. your probably some woman who spends 99% of your day at the mirror.🤣
Technically a phone can be a mirror so isn't that what your doing
dasamething wrote:
talking about superbikerqueen
Never mind lol
Jun 11, 2024
0
#8935
DiogenesDue wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
i told u get out of here, yeah theres the occasional interesting bit of info but this forum is a WASTE.
It is ultimately a waste, but the phenom just demonstrated by SuperBikeQueen of arriving on the thread but not even reading the first pages shows why the crackpots have to be repeatedly refuted over time to prevent their insanity from spreading around. Not doing so eventually leads to bad results like most the world believing that Kasparov has a 180 IQ, etc.
Imagine going to Reddit or something and one day reading a thread about solving chess and then seeing somebody say:
"I read an authority on the subject who says that the problem space can easily be reduced to 10^17 positions and who proved that the ICCF results already proves chess is weakly solved, and that seems to be the consensus because there is no opposition of note."
Cringeworthy, no?
well yeah thats literally why im here, to be the guy (among others) that corrects tygxc. you guys deal with opt.
but its not worth it for others who arent going to go all in.
Jun 11, 2024
0
#8936
dasamething wrote:
why you have continue this solved topic?
because there are those on the thread who continue to spread lies and misinformation. a few of us have stayed behind to correct their falsehoods to make sure that nobody is misinformed/
dasamething wrote:
why you have continue this solved topic?
Some people don't understand statistics .... We have to correct them
Also chess is not solved now you go draw every game (oh wait... )
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
dasamething wrote:
what would you know. your probably some woman who spends 99% of your day at the mirror.🤣
Wow, a sexist remark. Typical. Unless it's breathing it's not even possible to spend 99% doing anything for a whole day! Grow up.
Technically a phone can be a mirror so isn't that what your doing
dasamething wrote:
superbikerqueen i find it strange that you joined 10 days ago, and have won most of your games.
I find it strange that YOU are strange
Optimissed wrote:
It's complex for YOU, dorkbrain, because you would have to remember several things I wrote and there are several parts to the argument explaining why the maths department here are no better than tygxc and actually a fair bit worse. Since they (you) demand a deductive argument from the scientific department (science doesn't produce deductive arguments as a rule although that CAN be part of science) then it's only fair to demand a deductive argument from the maths department and I showed it's impossible since what they propose to do, solving-wise, also counts as a scientific experiment. No proof that it's accurate, that the programs are correct etc etc. It doesn't stand as a deductive acgument.
I had hopes for MEGA but I'm afraid he's as useless as you. How do you intend to "deal" with me, when I can run rings round you except you're too dumb to know when you lost an argument? You really are incredibly dense. Pretentious isn't the word for you. Crazy really is and it turns out that after writing nearly one decent post with only a few mistakes, Mega has used his brain this year and he has to fill in the application form again or pay his subscription to ChatGwhatsit. You're just kids except you're, what, 62? Eleven years younger than me and you act like a nonogenarian with the palsy. You re TOTALLY out of your league and always have been. Even your chess rating is about 202.
You answered this post rather than the one where I made your own argument more clear and succinct and then pointed out the problems with it, I see. I expect it was the other post that made you blow your gasket here, but from your perspective I guess it is probably better to respond to this one and not invite much scrutiny of the fact that you have no answers.
I'm not in my 60s yet, old man. Your juvenile insults about everything else but the subject at hand just betray your inability to engage me in any kind of logical/reasonable way. "Dorkbrain"? Palsy? Are these really your best attempts...?
For instance, in the deductive syllogism, the premise that the search was correctly programmed, there were no glitches, no outside interference, correctly retrieved from the engines etc etc etc would have to be stated and such a syllogism would mean nothing if those and other conditions couldn't be proven to have been met. It isn't about whether they can be proven not to have been met because that obviously wouldn't give the certainty demanded for the scientific method. That's even if such a method could ever be possible, which is extremely improbable.
Lol.
Stripped of your syllogistic goobledegook and other extraneous verbiage added to give the illusion of complexity:
"Even if the search algorithm is programmed correctly, you have to be able to prove it was programmed correctly, which is a feat in itself...but ultimately required to meet the standards of the scientific method."
That's your idea of complex? To remind us of the very basics of how rigorous methodology works?