tygxc was referring to engine strength errors as being negligible, not coding errors.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Jun 13, 2024
0
#9103
Yes, his thinking was muddled. I'm not 100% sure he acknowledges yet that Schaeffer's work was rigorous (barring any unidentified errors, as always!)
Jun 13, 2024
0
#9104
Elroch wrote:
Yes, his thinking was muddled. I'm not 100% sure he acknowledges yet that Schaeffer's work was rigorous (barring any unidentified errors, as always!)
he doesnt, because tygxc doesnt actually understand what "rigorous" even means in proof.
i feel like it could be solved 'just right' w/ some probability. kinda like goldilocks & her coffee. s/w btwn weak & strong. id be happy w/ that. todays world. in 10-20 yrs probably wont matter. stuffs abt to ▲ for the different. not necessarily 4da better or worse. not ez not clear. were abt to face this future w/ a stranded past. but then i luv the future more than the now. and my past is free for whoever asks.
& Lukey ?...cookie wants to meet u. i told her he couldnt handle u. she wuznt big on that but she knows it true. so take a flea bath & sneak on banana boat one. u can sleep during the day lol !
tygxc wrote:
@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. [These previous two steps make an assumption that cannot be proven about underpromotions not being relevant]
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.
[This previous step takes a 0.001% bite of the already compromised 10^38 cake and assumes the rest of the cake is conclusively proven to have no frosting]
To weakly solve chess like Schaeffer did for Checkers requiresSqrt (10^34) = 10^17 positions.'The perfect Alpha-Beta search will halve the exponent' Checkers Is Solved
[Not proven to be possible for chess as of yet, but true for checkers, a much simpler game with only 2 kinds of pieces that only move in more limited ways and in only half the space]
The 17 finalists of the ongoing ICCF World Championship considered90*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
[Comparing apples to oranges. The two 10^17 numbers represent entirely different things]
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.
Steps that don't work in bold. Steps that are ridiculous in red. Note that the final comparing of apples to oranges is a capitulation by Tygxc. He knows he can't ever get to his solution, so he swaps in a lookalike number, much like a bad con man. For 500+ pages he never once mentioned this possibility, then suddenly decides to just call chess solved as-is via false equivocation. It's a move of desperation.
"Hey, why not just call this 1/2lb pile of ground beef a herd of cows...? Problem solved."
Jun 13, 2024
0
#9107
DiogenesDue wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@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. [These previous two steps make an assumption that cannot be proven about underpromotions not being relevant]
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.
[This previous step takes a 0.001% bite of the already compromised 10^38 cake and assumes the rest of the cake is conclusively proven to have no frosting]
To weakly solve chess like Schaeffer did for Checkers requiresSqrt (10^34) = 10^17 positions.'The perfect Alpha-Beta search will halve the exponent' Checkers Is Solved
[Not proven to be possible for chess as of yet, but true for checkers, a much simpler game with only 2 kinds of pieces that only move in more limited ways and in only half the space]
The 17 finalists of the ongoing ICCF World Championship considered90*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
[Comparing apples to oranges. The two 10^17 numbers represent entirely different things]
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.
Steps that don't work in bold. Steps that are ridiculous in red. Note that the final comparing of apples to oranges is a capitulation by Tygxc. He knows he can't ever get to his solution, so he swaps in a lookalike number, much like a bad con man. For 500+ pages he never once mentioned this possibility, then suddenly decides to just call chess solved as-is via false equivocation. It's a move of desperation.
"Hey, why not just call this 1/2lb pile of ground beef a herd of cows...? Problem solved."
You missed:
"Thus Chess is a draw and there have been found not 1 but 4-5 ways to draw."
"So the results are redundant."
u have 5 ?...i have 10. and i soak them every day dn off the harborwalk. like 15 mins. im very proud of my digits. probably a bit ocd but owell.
Jun 13, 2024
0
#9109
Ways a chess game might be drawn.
1) by agreement
2) by stalemate
3) by insufficient mating material for both sides - like just two Kings on the board for example.
4) by three times repetition of a position - with perpetual check a branch of that perchance
5) by the 50 move rule
6) by 'book draw' including by adjudication.
For example King and rook versus King and rook.
Or King and edge-pawn versus a lone King that is on the edge-file in front of that edge pawn.
There's others.
7) by clock flag falling - with the side who didn't run out of time not having enough mating material.
-----------------
so there's seven so far.
Luke-Jaywalker wrote:
why do we have 5 toes ?
A good question...for the evolution thread.
Elroch wrote:
You missed:
"Thus Chess is a draw and there have been found not 1 but 4-5 ways to draw."
"So the results are redundant."
I was sticking strictly to the faulty reasoning steps of chopping 10^44 unique positions to 10^17, then trying to equate the ICCF number with that...but yes.
I agree
Jun 13, 2024
0
#9113
DiogenesDue wrote:
Elroch wrote:
You missed:
"Thus Chess is a draw and there have been found not 1 but 4-5 ways to draw."
"So the results are redundant."
I was sticking strictly to the faulty reasoning steps of chopping 10^44 unique positions to 10^17, then trying to equate the ICCF number with that...but yes.
I just posted seven very distinct ways to draw.
A few posts ago.
Jun 13, 2024
0
#9114
dasamething wrote:
they say chess has more possibilities then atoms in the universe. is that true?
No.
Nobody knows the size nor mass of the universe. Nobody ever will.
Plus it'll never be proved that the universe is finite - nor infinite.
So the answer ...
No.
------------------------------------
How a question is put ...
'observed universe' would be better to have in the question.
But even that ... 'the observed universe' constantly grows (no not expands - grows - expansion is another subject) (and an infinitely large object - how could it 'expand'? Lol.)
'observed universe' grows for two reasons.
Note the word 'observed' is critical there.
First - astronomy improves.
But even with astronomy not improving - new galaxies are constantly being discovered and would and will be discovered anyway. But astronomy is also improving - to discover even more and faster too.
So 'observed universe' is not Static in size or mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
But that doesn't mean there's some kind of limit out there.
(plus many want the Big Bang to be the only Big Bang - but an infinite number of cosmic eggs in an infinite universe - blowing up to produce an infinite number of big bangs in past and present and future - elsewhere .... destroys 'universal entropy' and 'the big bang is the universe' Just Like That. One sharp stone kills two very big birds.)
Jun 13, 2024
0
#9115
Elroch wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
"As Schaeffer wrote: 'Even if an error has crept into the calculations, it likely
does not change the final result.'
sorry, math proofs dont work like that. thats an appeal to authority fallacy
Mathematicians do sometimes make such comments about very difficult proofs but, as you say, this comment is not about what a proof is. It is about human fallibility and an uncertain beliefs about what is true if it has compromised the work! Schaeffer would definitely agree that IF an error was found, some of the analysis would need to be done for the conclusion to stand. He (and everyone else) would expect the same conclusion in the end.
It's a little different in the case of the solution of checkers, since it is more about the correctness of the code than the correctness of a proof designed for humans. I recall hearing that when the 4 color theorem was proved (it was actually achieved while I was at school), there was distrust from some graph theorists because it was not practical for a human to check the computer's working! Of course, what was really needed was for someone to check that the program was correct according to the mathematics - i.e. that it checked examples in a valid way and that it checked all the necessary examples. The execution of the program could be taken as reliable.
There is a printed proof available - I haven't read it. It's rather long but probably not impossible. I think about the same as a fourth volume added to Whiehead & Russell's PM in size and I suspect in not dissimilar style.
"The execution of the program could be taken as reliable."
Really?
Jun 13, 2024
0
#9118
dasamething wrote:
i spend too much time on these forums💀
Time goes by whatever you do.
Money can be hoarded. But stop that clock? No go.
Jun 13, 2024
0
#9119
dasamething wrote:
so if a person doesnt do anything does time stop for them?
No.
Except at the end of life.
Point: - if you don't 'spend the time' can you put it in a bank?
Well this you know.
Even in russia - the mainstream probably frowns on big investments of time in chess and chess-related activities.
But chess has basicially been an activity for the privileged and others who have a lot of leisure time or think they do.
@12195
"I need to know these 4 ways of how to draw a game."
Against 1 e4:
- 1 e4 e6
- 1 e4 c5
- 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6
- 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6
Against 1 d4:
- 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6
- 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4
- 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6
- 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6
- 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6
The redundancy makes it fail safe.
Even if a double error were found in one line, there are 3-4 backup lines of defense to draw.
"As Schaeffer wrote: 'Even if an error has crept into the calculations, it likely
does not change the final result.'
sorry, math proofs dont work like that. thats an appeal to authority fallacy
Mathematicians do sometimes make such comments about very difficult proofs but, as you say, this comment is not about what a proof is. It is about human fallibility and an uncertain beliefs about what is true if it has compromised the work! Schaeffer would definitely agree that IF an error was found, some of the analysis would need to be done for the conclusion to stand. He (and everyone else) would expect the same conclusion in the end.
It's a little different in the case of the solution of checkers, since it is more about the correctness of the code than the correctness of a proof designed for humans. I recall hearing that when the 4 color theorem was proved (it was actually achieved while I was at school), there was distrust from some graph theorists because it was not practical for a human to check the computer's working! Of course, what was really needed was for someone to check that the program was correct according to the mathematics - i.e. that it checked examples in a valid way and that it checked all the necessary examples. The execution of the program could be taken as reliable.