looking at some of the recent comments,
is it any wonder Optimissed wins all these debates so easily
He just attackdls/trolls then wins cause you can't do anything about that nonsense on the Internet
Rather looses then gets muted
looking at some of the recent comments,
is it any wonder Optimissed wins all these debates so easily
Maybe you also believe the sky is green.
And hey - there's flat-earthism too.
You're entitled.
Does the website allow flat-earthism in the public forums?
Geocentrism?
I don't know. I haven't seen them in the public forums.
It allows evolution-denial and denial of manmade global warming though.
Going by FIDE rules, the game is already solved: bribe the officials to give you the win every game.
The role of the arbiter in the basic rules game is limited to deciding whether an assistant proposed for a player who is unable to move the pieces is acceptable to him. He has no power to award a win.
Even if he did, youl'd still have either failed to achieve the object of the game or wasted your money.
You win the game every time so its solved by definition. I also didnt say "arbiter" I said "officials"
your language of "the object of the game" is you conflating the board rules with conduct rules again, checkmate is only a position on the board, that doesnt necessarily mean anything in FIDE rules. the optimal result of FIDE rules is a mark indicating a victory point.
bribing officials is a guarantee of that. (provided the other player isnt also using this strategy)
an equivalent solution of FIDE chess is to threaten harm upon the family of the other player unless they immediately resign.
I gather he's gone again. Every time he goes he takes half the thread with him and breaks all the back links in anybody else's posts.
everything is possible even solving chess
Now just because you could grow 1000 feet doesn't mean you will
Imagine a chess position of X paradigms.
Now, a chess computer rated 3000 solves that position. All well and good.
Could another computer rated a zillion solve that position better than Rybka?
No, because not even chess computer zillion could solve the Ruy Lopez better than a sad FIDE master could.
the point is, there's chess positions with exact solutions. Either e4, or d4, or c4, etc.
nothing in the world can change that.
So if you are talking about chess as a competitive sport, then chess has already been solved by kasparov, heck, by capablanca.
If you are talking chess as a meaningless sequence of algorithms, where solving chess equates not to logical solutions of positional and tactical prowess, but as 'how many chess positions could ensure from this one?'' type of solutions, then, the solutions are infinite.
So can chess be solved? If it is as a competitive sport where one side must, win, then it has already been solved. Every possible BEST move in chess has been deduced long ago.
If chess is a meaningless set of moves, with no goal in sight, then sure, chess will never be solved.
Bro literally closed his account 2 days after this!
everything is possible even solving chess
Now just because you could grow 1000 feet doesn't mean you will
its possible.
Not for you though unless you can magically change the laws of the universe
"I'm saying no more than that the rules of FIDE basic and competition rules chess are the rules in the FIDE handbook and similarly for ICCF and TCEC which refer to those rules. Very many people would agree with that, so if I'm conflating anything I'm in good company."
No you arent. FIDE rules are FIDE rules. That has nothing to do with the fact that you conflate the rules of conduct/officiation with the rules of the game. You point out vagueness in the rules of conduct as justification for the claim that the rules of the game aren't specified.
"I couldn't play much of a game from that set of rules. Is there a well recognised source for it?"
basically every single chess program and paper refers to it, even the FIDE rules have it.
"Either the 50 move rule is a variation or vice versa (it was generally accepted as the norm prior to 2017)."
there is no 'base' vs 'variations'. its 'game' vs another 'games'
"Whatever, solutions with and without the rule already don't match for <= 7 man positions that have been solved."
Actually they do match. The rules I gave are the exact rules used in the table base.
"By the way the rules of the board and the defined outcome of each move on the board are different in each of your variations and that is very relevant to the topic."
Not relevant at all. each variation is just a different object with a different solution, each of them able to be called "chess".
Going by FIDE rules, the game is already solved: bribe the officials to give you the win every game.
The role of the arbiter in the basic rules game is limited to deciding whether an assistant proposed for a player who is unable to move the pieces is acceptable to him. He has no power to award a win.
Even if he did, youl'd still have either failed to achieve the object of the game or wasted your money.
You win the game every time so its solved by definition. I also didnt say "arbiter" I said "officials"
How many officials would there be in a basic rules game of chess over a coffee with your brother (who is perfectly capable of moving for himself)? What other officials are mentioned in the basic rules section? (Art. 4.9 is obviously just a FIDE cock up in the first place.)
your language of "the object of the game" is you conflating the board rules with conduct rules again, checkmate is only a position on the board, that doesnt necessarily mean anything in FIDE rules. the optimal result of FIDE rules is a mark indicating a victory point.
Well it's FIDE's language rather than mine, but for the lifo of me I can't see what it has to do with conduct. It's in the basic rules section and there are no conduct rules in the basic rules section. You'll have to explain the connection.
bribing officials is a guarantee of that. (provided the other player isnt also using this strategy)
But not a very strong guarantee if you haven't got any officials handy.
an equivalent solution of FIDE chess is to threaten harm upon the family of the other player unless they immediately resign.
Or just the player, being closer to hand (depending on how large he is, but it could backfire either way).
A Game over coffee isnt FIDE rules, and you will notice that I said my solution was for FIDE rules. in addition, the result is what you and your brother agree upon, not what's on the board.
Conduct and officiation rules are the bridge between the abstract rules of the game itself and the practical application of the rules.
the Abstract rules of the game are what make up the mathematical object, and are what is 'solved'.
while it is true that a solution for one variation of chess may not work for a different variation, that does not mean that it isnt considered a "solution", it's just a solution of that specific variant.
I gather he's gone again. Every time he goes he takes half the thread with him and breaks all the back links in anybody else's posts.
There's another thing that happens with intensely trolling people.
When they disappear for whatever reason - there's a trolling 'vaccuum' left behind them.
Why? How? Because forums and politics clubs get conditioned by trolling factions. Cliques.
Club owners and opening posters in the public forums sweat gallons of sweat thinking they need such people to maintain enough 'activity' so they kowtow to such cliques.
---------------------------------------------------
Necessary or useful 'disagreements' get confused with 'trollfests' and the forum or club has then been conditioned. Damaged.
You see it blatantly in the politics clubs 'Get him back or I'm leaving too!'
Among with other power plays like :
'If you talk to that person who blocked me then I'm not talking to you anymore!'
'If you join that person's club I'm banning you in My club!'
--------------------------------
Moral: don't give in to cliques and power plays.
Don't kneel. Give them nothing.
"I'm saying no more than that the rules of FIDE basic and competition rules chess are the rules in the FIDE handbook and similarly for ICCF and TCEC which refer to those rules. Very many people would agree with that, so if I'm conflating anything I'm in good company."
No you arent. FIDE rules are FIDE rules. That has nothing to do with the fact that you conflate the rules of conduct/officiation with the rules of the game.
FIDE rules are definitely FIDE rules. That rules of conduct are included is true. Therefore I don't conflate those with the rules of the game if you're using the word "conflate" to mean confuse. If you're using the word "conflate" to mean simply group together then I do, but why on Earth you should conclude that means I'm not saying what I wrote escapes me.
You point out vagueness in the rules of conduct as justification for the claim that the rules of the game aren't specified.
I pointed out several ambiguities that mean the specified rules could be interpreted in different ways (a rule of conduct included) leading to possibly different mathematical models if all aspects of the rules were to be modelled.
The object was to qualify your comment that started this dialogue, "tbf once you specify rules the game becomes a mathematical object almost by definition". The mathematical object is not simply an automatic result of a set of natural language rules because those will normally contain ambiguities that could be resolved in different ways.
"I couldn't play much of a game from that set of rules. Is there a well recognised source for it?"
basically every single chess program and paper refers to it, even the FIDE rules have it.
The "it" in question was
in answer to my question, "What would you say are the rules of the game and do you think "game" should be singular?"
It really doesn't count as a set of rules from which a mathematical model could be constructed and I don't think any of the resources you mention would describe it as such.
I prefer the FIDE version in spite of its many faults.
"Either the 50 move rule is a variation or vice versa (it was generally accepted as the norm prior to 2017)."
there is no 'base' vs 'variations'. its 'game' vs another 'games'
I have generally referred to FIDE basic rules chess and FIDE basic rules chess as two games. The above was a response to your comment, "stuff like the 50-move rule are variations" quoted above, noting that the 50 move rule has been standard for the majority of recent history.
"Whatever, solutions with and without the rule already don't match for <= 7 man positions that have been solved."
Actually they do match. The rules I gave are the exact rules used in the table base.
No they don't match. See the examples at the end of my post here.
"By the way the rules of the board and the defined outcome of each move on the board are different in each of your variations and that is very relevant to the topic."
Not relevant at all. each variation is just a different object with a different solution, each of them able to be called "chess".
We obviously have different interpretations of the word "relevant".
A Game over coffee isnt FIDE rules, and you will notice that I said my solution was for FIDE rules. in addition, the result is what you and your brother agree upon, not what's on the board.
We play FIDE basic rules. I think most people do over coffee. We usually have a board too.
Got to confess I missed your solution. What's the answer - is it a draw? Basic and competition rules both?
Conduct and officiation rules are the bridge between the abstract rules of the game itself and the practical application of the rules.
the Abstract rules of the game are what make up the mathematical object, and are what is 'solved'.
Well I learn something new every day!
while it is true that a solution for one variation of chess may not work for a different variation, that does not mean that it isnt considered a "solution", it's just a solution of that specific variant.
Works even for variants like bridge. But did I say a solution wasn't a solution somewhere? I take it back immediately.
By the way, when I say that solutions for FIDE basic and competition rules don't match, I mean that we have solutions for each that disagree on the evaluation of moves e.g. Nalimov and Syzygy respectively, not that a solution for one variation of chess may not work for the other; the Syzygy tablebase will work for either (as a weak solution suitable for gameplay in the latter case).
keep in mind that many of the terms I used like "conduct+ officiation rules" are not formal terms.
Im pretty sure you already knew the concepts and there was just a communication error on our ends.
@MARattigan what's important to note that something doesn't have to be completely and tightly defined to be a mathematical object. However, what i am arguing to you is that chess can be defined as a full game in game theory.
"It really doesn't count as a set of rules from which a mathematical model could be constructed and I don't think any of the resources you mention would describe it as such."
Yeah it does, and yes they do. My rules defined: 1) the players (self evident). 2) the information available to the players (the positions of the pieces on the board and whose turn it is). 3) the actions available to the players at any given time (legal piece movements). 4) the outcomes of each action (Win, draw, or the other player's turn).
Thats a full game by definition. and that's also what is encoded into the systems.
"No they don't match. See the examples at the end of my post here."
the example you gave shows a match to my rules. competition rules and non-50 move rules are entirely different objects. I gave matches to both. to claim that one is "chess" and the other is a 'variant of chess' is almost entirely subjective.
"Whatever, solutions with and without the rule already don't match for <= 7 man positions that have been solved." - this is what I interpreted you as saying that a solution wasnt a solution
they say chess has more possibilities then atoms in the universe. is that true?
wiki is your friend here.
@9410
"they say chess has more possibilities then atoms in the universe. is that true?"
++ The number of possible chess games lies between 10^29241 and 10^34082 because chess has so many transpositions. The longest possible chess game, and bounds on the number of possible chess games
The number of legal Chess positions is 4.82*10^44. Chess Position Ranking
but as the 3 samples show the vast majority cannot result from optimal play because of multiple underpromotions by both sides.
The number of legal Chess diagrams without promotions to pieces not previously captured is < 4 * 10^37. An upper bound for the number of chess diagrams without promotion
The number of legal chess positions without underpromotions to pieces not previously captured is about 10^38.
Inspection of a sample of 10,000 such positions shows none can result from optimal play by both sides. That leaves 10^38 / 10,000 = 10^34 relevant positions.
To weakly solve chess like Schaeffer did for Checkers requires
Sqrt (10^34) = 10^17 positions.
'The perfect Alpha-Beta search will halve the exponent' Checkers Is Solved
The 17 finalists of the ongoing ICCF World Championship 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
The result is 108 draws out of 108 games. WC33/final, World Championship 33 Final
Thus Chess is a draw and there have been found not 1 but 4-5 ways to draw.
So the results are redundant.
As Schaeffer wrote: 'Even if an error has crept into the calculations, it likely
does not change the final result.' The probability that this erroneous result can change
the value for the game of chess is vanishingly small.
He hasn't won one.