I agree.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Jun 13, 2024
0
#9123
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
#9124
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.
Jun 14, 2024
0
#9126
MARattigan wrote:
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?
Yes, really. When you do deterministic operations with a computer, you can be confident of the result. This makes it possible to spend several months running the Lucas-Lehmer algorithm to find a new prime, for example. Or to calculate 105 trillion digits of pi. This was probably a much bigger computation than solving checkers (and surely more pointless, beyond breaking the record!). To do it, you need an extremely high reliability of the elementary calculations,
They say they used 100 million gigabytes (c. 1e17 bytes) of data while the entire result would only require 4.36e13 bytes, assuming incompressibility. It may be that the algorithm uses a lot more storage to run efficiently in time, for reasons that would require knowledge of the algorithm.
Of course, when elementary calculations are not close enough to 100% reliable, you can always increase the reliability by doing error checking. The very simplest (and quite expensive) way is to do the calculation twice in parallel and repeat anything that does not agree. This roughly squares the error rate, a vast improvement.
Jun 14, 2024
0
#9127
tygxc wrote:
@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.
I don't know why my opponents bother playing on after those. They must not be aware that chess has been solved. 
@12192
"an assumption that cannot be proven about underpromotions not being relevant"
++ Underpromotions to rook or bishop only make sense to avoid a draw by stalemate.
That could make sense for one side, but not for both sides.
In the perfect games we have, some promotions to a 3rd and/or 4th queen occur, but promotions to a 3rd knight, bishop, or rook do not occur. If underpromotion were limited to pieces previously captured, then all games would be the same.
"This previous step takes a 0.001% bite"
++ 1 in 10,000 is 0.01%. Tromp conjectured it to be only 1 in 10^6 i.e. 0.0001%.
"Not proven to be possible for chess as of yet, but true for checkers" ++ Alpha-Beta search is a universal method to prune search trees and does not depend on the game.
"The two 10^17 numbers represent entirely different things"
++ Yes, one is the number of positions to be considered to weakly solve Chess and the other is the number of positions actually considered during the ongoing ICCF WC Finals.
That they turn out the same shows that the effort is commensurate with the required effort.
tygxc wrote:
"an assumption that cannot be proven about underpromotions not being relevant"
++ Underpromotions to rook or bishop only make sense to avoid a draw by stalemate.
That could make sense for one side, but not for both sides.
In the perfect games we have, some promotions to a 3rd and/or 4th queen occur, but promotions to a 3rd knight, bishop, or rook do not occur. If underpromotion were limited to pieces previously captured, then all games would be the same.
"This previous step takes a 0.001% bite"
++ 1 in 10,000 is 0.01%. Tromp conjectured it to be only 1 in 10^6 i.e. 0.0001%.
"Not proven to be possible for chess as of yet, but true for checkers" ++ Alpha-Beta search is a universal method to prune search trees and does not depend on the game.
"The two 10^17 numbers represent entirely different things"
++ Yes, one is the number of positions to be considered to weakly solve Chess and the other is the number of positions actually considered during the ongoing ICCF WC Finals.
That they turn out the same shows that the effort is commensurate with the required effort.
Alpha Beta pruning *when optimal* can effectively reduce the game tree complexity to its square root. Checkers has an average branching factor of 10, chess has an average branching factor of 35. In order to achieve optimal pruning, the branching moves must be evaluated in the best possible order. This means that the best moves are to be considered first.
Slight problem: you have no way of ordering the average 35 moves perfectly (and, as you might imagine, ordering 35 in a more complex game correctly would be a very tall order compared to ordering 10 in a much simpler game), only via a vague approximation based on human and engine-derived valuations. So, I will maintain that it is not at all proven to be possible to achieve the 17 orders of magnitude downward leap you are positing.
@12216
"chess has an average branching factor of 35" ++ Where is your proof of that?
Here is proof that the average branching factor without transposition is 3.
The perfect ICCF WC Finals games draw in average 39 moves. Chess without underpromotions to pieces not previously captured has 10^38 positions. 10^38 = 3^80 = 3^(2*40).
Some positions have more branches: 20 in the initial position, but easy to order at least near perfectly. Some positions have only one legally forced move like Qxd8+ Kxd8, or only one practically forced move like a forced recapture. Apart from that Chess has many transpositions.
"This means that the best moves are to be considered first." ++ Yes, Best-first search
"you have no way of ordering the average 35 moves perfectly"
++ The ordering does not need to be perfect.
Jun 14, 2024
0
#9131
lmfao tygxc acting like all he saidhasnt been long debunked
""The two 10^17 numbers represent entirely different things"
++ Yes, one is the number of positions to be considered to weakly solve Chess and the other is the number of positions actually considered duri the ongoing ICCF WC Finals.
That they turn out the same shows that the effort is commensurate with the required effort"
no, thats's you claiming that two entirely different processes are the same type of work.
we have explained many times how it is completely different. A node is not a full positional evaluation. you just wave your hands and pretend that the objective rebuttal to your ridiculous claims doesnt exist.
"The perfect ICCF WC Finals games draw in average 39 moves. Chess without underpromotions to pieces not previously captured has 10^38 positions. 10^38 = 3^80 = 3^(2*40)."
that doesnt count as "proof" because your 10^38 has not been sufficiently demonstrated, and it ignores the fact that positions can be reached by multiple independent trees.
but of course rigor isnt something you are fond of considering
""This means that the best moves are to be considered first." ++ Yes, Best-first search" your calculation has no room for deciding which moves are best.
tygxc really does reach anti vaxxer levels of logical inconsistency.
tygxc, why havent you addressed the fact that dozens of math majors and math professors all agree with the fallacies i point out in your illogic?
Jun 14, 2024
0
#9132
Dio, elroch and MAR, i feel like we have to unite our approaches to MAYBE get tygxc to shut up and understand basic logic.
because right now he's just selectively ignoring rebuttals that he cant handle, and "addressing" the ones that he can take out of context and lie about.
tygxc wrote:
"chess has an average branching factor of 35" ++ Where is your proof of that?
Here is proof that the average branching factor without transposition is 3.
The perfect ICCF WC Finals games draw in average 39 moves. Chess without underpromotions to pieces not previously captured has 10^38 positions. 10^38 = 3^80 = 3^(2*40).
Some positions have more branches: 20 in the initial position, but easy to order at least near perfectly. Some positions have only one legally forced move like Qxd8+ Kxd8, or only one practically forced move like a forced recapture. Apart from that Chess has many transpositions.
"This means that the best moves are to be considered first." ++ Yes, Best-first search
"you have no way of ordering the average 35 moves perfectly"
++ The ordering does not need to be perfect.
I got 35 from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branching_factor
You know, the definition of branching factors...? Chess is their main example. The wikipedia definition references two other works:
https://www.wired.com/2014/05/the-world-of-computer-go/
If the moves are not ordered correctly, then you are not going to get down to the square root. The further from perfect, the more off your premise is...
@12220
"I got 35 from here" ++ Yes, that 35 are the also mentioned 31 may be plausible,
but does not take transpositions into account.
It often happens that moves A and B are available, but at the next moves AB or BA are available, collapsing to the same position.
A position should be considered once only, regardless of how it was reached.
Transpositions are no exception, but the rule.
10^38 = 31^25
With a non transposing branching factor of 31 all chess games would be over in 13 moves.
There can be no more chess positions than there are chess positions.
That is the pigeonhole principle
ur talking abt bruting 10^x layouts. know that AI is gonna bring that # way-WAY dn. i know mosta u beauzeauz cant for the lyfa u bleeve that ?...but trust me...just watch. its coming. yee !
Jun 14, 2024
0
#9136
tygxc you were just objectively demonstrated to be incorrect and this has had zero effect on your claims
Jun 14, 2024
0
#9137
tygxc why arent you addressing the fact that the 10^17 nodes used in the correspondance chess are not full positional evaluations?
it takes 10^17 nodes to complete 100 games with reasonable confidence of no errors. thats 10^-15 of the way there.
u guys are tryn2 completely describe chess. u approaching it WRONG. know why ?...cuz AIs gonna remove the need to. s/t in the future ur gonna hafta accept that not EVERY position will need a full eval. ur tiny mind is looking 4a solution from what u know (iows the past). u needta take urself beyond that. i know thats hard for those w/a lactose backbone. dont be one a them.
u can thank the sci-fi renaissance for where were at today. isnt this fun ?!
Lukeys sooo right...x will find us before we find it. and then who knows whats gonna happen ?
We agree.