u just need opti back so u can pick on s/o. and ty for re: that crypto thingy from so long ago. wow lol ! why doncha go obsess on s/o else...plz ?
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
u just need opti back so u can pick on s/o. and ty for re: that crypto thingy from so long ago. wow lol ! why doncha go obsess on s/o else...plz ?
It's not that long ago, and the obsession was yours, which is why I remember it easily. You're acting like I never refuted your assertions while also handling Optimissed's. I'm an equal opportunity crackpot-buster.
lol !! are u thru dopey ?
burst !
Luke-Jaywalker wrote:
he loves winning arguments inside his head.
its what gives him the buzz he needs to start every day as an adventure
At least I actually engage in discussions...the two of you just take potshots from the sidelines offering nothing, knowing you will get yourselves in trouble in a head-ups debate. It's been a decade and nothing much has changed.
You'll always be the serial sockpuppeteer stirring up drama for fun, and Lola will always be playing the kooky-but-cute role looking for male validation from the wrong source.
It's almost poignant and nostalgic...but not quite. Sorry for the blunt assessment of reality.
blah blah blah...quite overanalyzing milk toast
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
blah blah blah...quite overanalyzing milk toast
That would be "quit" and "milquetoast". The latter term comes from a fictional character from the Sunday comics. If by "overanalyzing" you mean that my observations/points are more accurate...well, that tracks with this exchange right here.
You two both like to take potshots, but don't seem to like anything coming back your way.
That would be "quit" and "milquetoast". The latter term comes from a fictional character from the Sunday comics. If by "overanalyzing" you mean that my observations/points are more accurate...well, that tracks with this exchange right here.
ok fine ur the smartest person in the world...now woodja *hut up already ? lol !
* > s
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
That would be "quit" and "milquetoast". The latter term comes from a fictional character from the Sunday comics. If by "overanalyzing" you mean that my observations/points are more accurate...well, that tracks with this exchange right here.
ok fine ur the smartest person in the world...now woodja *hut up already ? lol !
* > s
I do not claim to be smarter than everybody around me. You're thinking of someone else. Have a good weekend.
Jun 14, 2024
0
#9152
DiogenesDue wrote:
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.
The only value of ordering the moves to a solution of chess is selecting the sole move to be played in a strategy. It leaves the roughly 35 moves for the other side to play. 35^13.
By chance, log10(35^11) = 10^17 (near as damn it). Which only has value to emphasise the absurdity of tygxc's claims.
My best guess is that you need about 10^30 positions for a weak solution of chess. The rule set does not matter much, since both strategies have a side playing optimally (so you don't get silly examples where the dumb route that has been taken to a position lowers the value of the position. Optimal players can avoid double repetitions when winning and are happy with draws the rest of the time.
Jun 14, 2024
0
#9153
DiogenesDue wrote:
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.
Game tree - versus number of positions 'tree'.
Whether going from the back (endgame tablebases) with 'positions'
or going from the front (the opening position with 32 pieces) with 'games' as opposed to positions - either way the numbers get prohibitive kind of quickly.
Prohibitively large.
-------------------------
I don't know if its been done in the forum yet -
but with enough 'cheating approximation' - chess would not only be very quickly 'weakly' solved ... but there could be a new method to do that both weakly and weekly.
Maybe that's been done many times ...
Limit each side to just two optimal options each - at every point.
How many games would there be? How many possible positions?
tygxc would have the data perchance.
-----------------------------------------------
Then try three options each.
If tygxc could refrain from using 'nodes per second' and make his arguments with 'computer operations per second' instead ... then he might really be able to present something 'good'.
Like where is the cutoff where the number of options that actually produce further variations to be considered - becomes prohibitive?
Five each?
-----------------------------
Note that chess software has to 'prune' the variations it will consider.
How many moves can it 'brute force' ahead? (all legal options considered and their resulting variations)
And even there - evaluations will not be perfect.
Jun 14, 2024
0
#9154
Note that chess software has to 'prune' the variations it will consider.
Game software. As opposed to 'project' software.
Stockfish or whatever.
It has to prune it. Anyway.
Programmers probably have to face that constantly.
'hey we want a strong engine but we're not trying to 'solve' chess. Not even 'weakly'.'
Jun 14, 2024
0
#9155
playerafar wrote:
Note that chess software has to 'prune' the variations it will consider.
Game software. As opposed to 'project' software.
Stockfish or whatever.
It has to prune it. Anyway.
Programmers probably have to face that constantly.
'hey we want a strong engine but we're not trying to 'solve' chess. Not even 'weakly'.'
yeah tygxc's 10^17 argument assumes that it's already pre pruned LOL. even though such a pruning would already be enough to weakly solve.
howbout we try to soft solve (using a game derivative) by halving the board (quartering it ??). & then taking that quant into eulers # (for the decay rate toward outright checkmate)...u know for a little better number ? it beats the probabilistic avenue right ?
Jun 14, 2024
0
#9157
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
howbout we try to soft solve (using a game derivative) by halving the board (quartering it ??). & then taking that quant into eulers # (for the decay rate toward outright checkmate)...u know for a little better number ? it beats the probabilistic approach right ?
You could try chess on a 4 x 4 board but then the pawns start right up against each other.
6x6 would be better but in that case - what pieces are not there to start?
Each side would need to 'lose' two pieces.
--------------------------------------
Get rid of the a-rooks and the b-knights and the pawns in front of them.
Then try and solve.
The endgame tablebases are going to have about the same problems.
So will the 'game tree' from the opening position.
The numbers will still get too big too fast. In either case.
Jun 14, 2024
0
#9158
Luke-Jaywalker wrote:
he has actually put some serious thought into that one Lola.
totally unexpected
Many things would be unexpected to LJ.
Is LJ going to put 'thought' into anything but his trolling?
Would that be 'unexpected' when it happens?
Why can't LJ compete with O when it comes to trolling?
Because LJ just isn't as fragile and delicate and insecure as O is ...
@12142
"chess has a branching factor from 31" ++ Some positions can have 31 legal choices, but average only 3 that do not transpose: 3^80 = 10^38.
"until you can perfectly evaluate a single position" ++ 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white, without needing any game tree. The perfect evaluation of 1 a4 cannot be better than that of 1 e4, without needing any game tree.
"Whether AB or BA are actually identical in result is not something you can determine"
++ Of course move order matters, but when the same position results, it is the same and needs only consideration once.
Chess is full of transpositions: the branches come back together in the same node.
"you are not actually working with 10^44" ++ I work with 10^38: nobody promotes to a 3rd rook, bishop, or knight in a real game, let alone in an optimal game.
"you double, triple, and possibly quadruple count the elimination of positions"
++ No. The reduction from 10^44 to 10^38 is by eliminating underpromotions to pieces not previously captured, i.e. to a 3rd rook, bishop, or knight. The reduction from 10^38 to 10^34 (or 10^32 per Tromp) is to eliminate positions that make no sense, i.e. cannot result from optimal play by both sides. The reduction from 10^34 (or 10^32) to 10^17 is by assuming perfect Alpha-Beta search for the weak solution.
"Your argument tries to apply it's largest reduction twice" ++ No.
myself being one of them
trust me. ur dummer than AI. & u know it.
That statement doesn't follow since you are actually the one being compared to, not AI...but what it does imply is that I was right, because I'm not "dummer" enough to make the mistake you just did.