a reminder to all observers that ive brought tygxc's "logic" to dozens of math majors and math professors and all of them found the same errors. in fact, almost all of them chided me for wasting my time with someone as illogical as tygxc.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Jun 20, 2024
0
#9523
tygxc wrote:
@12657
"what weakly solved is"
++ Again:
'weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition' Games solved: Now and in the future
There is a different interpretation about what 'any opposition' means. Elroch thinks it is all legal moves. I say all legal moves that oppose, i.e. strive against achieving the game-theoretic value.
there is no "interpretation". Elroch is objectively correct while you are objectively incorrect. anybody who isnt laboring under some delusional fantasy can tell that. if it doesnt address all possibilities then it isnt a solution, because those possibilities are by definition unresolved until rigorously dealt with.
There is a different interpretation about what 'a strategy' means. Elroch thinks only about a brute force method. As per the above paper I also think about knowledge based methods, like Allis' weak solution of Connect Four
There is no "different interpretation", you just have a faulty method. You dont use the "knowledge based method", as that method was rigorously proven, while yours isn't. the strategy must be as mathematically rigorous as the brute force by definition. your method is neither brute force nor knowledge based.
why do you continue to cite papers and definitions that you have no understanding of?
Jun 20, 2024
0
#9524
"10^34 is conservative: Tromp conjectured a reduction of 10^6 i.e. to 10^32."
he never did that lmfao.
if you actually READ THE SOURCES YOU CITED you would see that tromp's starting number is 10^44.
the 10^38 comes from an entirely different paper entirely.
well if u know sooo much abt programming then just hard solve the first (10) ply of a chess game. lets see what ur made of. pick any language u want. lol !!
Jun 20, 2024
0
#9526
the position that tygxc cites as not having underpromotions but is still unreasonable LITERALLY HAS UNDERPROMOTIONS IN IT.
god his idiocy astounds me.
Jun 20, 2024
0
#9527
"strongly believed that chess is a draw" ++ To me it is proven."
and this is why tygxc will get laughed out of any room with people with a highschool math education.
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
"strongly believed that chess is a draw" ++ To me it is proven."
and this is why tygxc will get laughed out of any room with people with a highschool math education.
"To me it is obvious" would be a much more reasonable statement ...
Jun 20, 2024
0
#9529
MaetsNori wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
"strongly believed that chess is a draw" ++ To me it is proven."
and this is why tygxc will get laughed out of any room with people with a highschool math education.
"To me it is obvious" would be a much more reasonable statement ...
you just dont have the full context. I have full confidence that you will reach the same position as I, and everyone here but tygxc, once you have that context. however, I highly recommend you do not do so, as while there is some good info on this thread, it is completely swamped by Terrence Howard-level BS and the wasted space of the subsequent debunking of those claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solving_chess just read this and never come back to this thread. I am only here to make sure that Tygxc doesnt mislead newcomers to the thread.
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
well if u know sooo much abt programming then just hard solve the first (10) ply of a chess game. lets see what ur made of. pick any language u want. lol !!
You can't "solve" the first 10 ply of a chess game...*facepalm*. Why do you think that tablebases use retrograde analysis?
Not that I would ever write a single line of code because some crackpot wanted proof of something anyway...
Well, yes, I'm not eager to go tumbling down this rabbit hole ...
I simply meant that tygxc could've said "obvious" instead of "proven", and the statement now becomes far less contentious ...
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
"10^34 is conservative: Tromp conjectured a reduction of 10^6 i.e. to 10^32."
he never did that lmfao.
if you actually READ THE SOURCES YOU CITED you would see that tromp's starting number is 10^44.
the 10^38 comes from an entirely different paper entirely.
I have seen no such statement by Tromp either...there's little doubt Tygxc is, at best, taking an offhand comment seriously, at worst just willfully mispresenting Tromp's work as being in lockstep with his. He's done it before. It's misleading and disingenuous.
Jun 20, 2024
0
#9533
tygxc wrote:
@12657
"what weakly solved is"
++ Again:
'weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition' Games solved: Now and in the future
There is a different interpretation about what 'any opposition' means. Elroch thinks it is all legal moves. I say all legal moves that oppose, i.e. strive against achieving the game-theoretic value.
There is a different interpretation about what 'a strategy' means. Elroch thinks only about a brute force method.
No, I KNOW that what is required is a rigorous method. Brute force is when you look at all moves for both sides.
When constructing a strategy it is useful to be guided by an imperfect strong player for candidate moves for the proponent. Sometimes a candidate move fails to be provably good, when another needs to be tried. It is perfectly acceptable to use engine ranked choices for candidates, and never ok to use them as an excuse to fail to construct a proof tree.
In maths if you want to prove a result that says A, B and C are true, you need to prove A, B and C. No shortcuts. No saying "A seems highly likely to me, I won't bother proving it".
In chess if you want to PROVE a move draws you need to PROVE every legal opponent response leads to a position that is not winning for them. No shortcuts. No saying "move M looks dumb to me and has an evaluation of -3, so I'll ignore it. That would be an incomplete proof, relying on an uncertain evaluation. It would also be wrong on many occasions.
While this should be obvious, I posted a link to explain what a proof tree was earlier. Schaeffer constructed such a proof tree for checkers. It provides a route to a tablebase draw against every legal opponent move at every stage. If it didn't it would not be a proof tree. It would be a bodge job of no value.
As per the above paper I also think about knowledge based methods, like Allis' weak solution of Connect Four
Being a weak solution, this is rigorous. It provides a proof that every opponent move loses, or it would be a fake. What it certainly never does is conflate uncertain evaluations with knowledge. That would be a bodge job and not adequate for publication or for a masters thesis.
Jun 20, 2024
0
#9534
MaetsNori wrote:
Well, yes, I'm not eager to go tumbling down this rabbit hole ...
I simply meant that tygxc could've said "obvious" instead of "proven", and the statement now becomes far less contentious ...
ah, i see where I misread. But here'ss the thing, tygxc genuinely believes that it counts as being mathematically proven.
well, a better way to put it is that tygxc doesnt have the faintest idea of the distinction between a mathematical proof and a casual proof.
and so tygxc throws around all these terms which require a mathematical proof, but then his justification for those are either: an engine evaluation, conventional wisdom, misreading definitions, or literal arithmetic errors.
for example, tygxc claimed that a certain position (where white was down a bishop in the opening) had been mathematically "ultra-weakly solved" (IE the outcome of such a position with perfect play had been rigorously determined, although the exact game tree is not necessarily known). Elroch pointed out that tygxc had no such mathematical proof, and tygxc then claimed that elroch was saying that he believed that it wasnt a white loss, which elroch never claimed.
I think chess is chess.
-Java, 2024
Jun 20, 2024
0
#9536
tygxc once even tried to cite merriam webster as the definition of "proof", despite the fact that mathematical proofs are completely different.
Jun 20, 2024
0
#9537
llama_l wrote:
What's obnoxious is that "solved," even outside of the context of game theory, has an intuitive definition... even a child would make a reasonable guess, and further guess that practical shortcuts lead to errors in a solution... it's obnoxious because none of this is hard to understand.
Yes, it's the difference between thinking you have a solution and proving you have a solution. I find it particularly annoying that @tygxc refers to work that definitely does it properly and claims they have not!
A reason bodged "solutions" like those advocated by @tygxc are of very little interest is that there is a continuum of them, all the way from a blind guess to just short of doing the job properly.
Jun 20, 2024
0
#9538
DiogenesDue wrote:
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
tygxc...i dont see any hard #'s coming from ur naysayers. do u ?...let alone a way to get there. they attack u but wheres THEIR answers ?...see ?...they wouldnt even know where to start in dev'ing the sw.
There's only one hard number in Tygxc's parade of premises...10^44, which is the same "hard number" everyone is using. Since the real answer is "there is no answer, nor one forthcoming anytime soon", your last point is meaningless.
"in Tygxc's parade of premises"
false premises.
tygxc's parade of False premises.
But - if you change the formal 'weakly solved' to just 'approximations to solving' then tygxc's positions aren't so invalid.
Everytime somebody wins a chess game they have done an 'approximation to solving' though.
So that would be a 'woopteedoo!' ...
---------------------------
tygxc's invalid claims remind me of the scientists who claimed they had discovered cold fusion.
Those scientists got a lot of attention including attention they didn't want ...
That was in 1989.
Their claims were debunked the same year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusiontygxc has been 'claiming' for two years now.
He's been debunked the whole time.
But still claims on.
Its like flat-earthism.
Society debunked flat-earthism before that ridiculous flat notion even got started.
But flat-earthism carries on.
So will tygxc.
Somehow - he's more 'respectable' than the flat-earthers though.
Not as shrill or strident in his tone.
Not as obsessed with proclaiming his message to the world.
Jun 20, 2024
0
#9539
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
the position that tygxc cites as not having underpromotions but is still unreasonable LITERALLY HAS UNDERPROMOTIONS IN IT.
god his idiocy astounds me.
Not only that, he uses an estimated number of positions with NO promotions as it it was ok for games that can have any number of promotions to queens and knights.
@12645
"it not a useful way to bring 10^43 down to 10^17"
++ Bringing down 10^44 to 10^38 is by eliminating vast numbers of positions like the 3 random samples shown in https://github.com/tromp/ChessPositionRanking. None of these can result from optimal play by both sides, as there are underpromotions to rooks and or bishops from both sides and underpromoting to a rook or bishop only makes sense to avoid a draw by stalemate, and it cannot be optimal play for both sides to avoid the draw.
Bringing down 10^38 to 10^34 is by eliminating positions like
10^34 is conservative: Tromp conjectured a reduction of 10^6 i.e. to 10^32.
The reduction from 10^34 to 10^17 is the square root assuming perfect alpha-beta pruning. Schaeffer arrived only at exponent 0.67 for Checkers, but chess programs have evolved more than Chinook, and Chess is easier to prune than Checkers.
The real exponent lies somewhere between 0.5 and 0.67.
"You need to be able to discard entire classes of positions"
++ Yes: after 1 e4 discard all classes of positions with a white pawn on e2.
After 1 e4 c5 discard all classes of positions with a black pawn on c7.
After 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 discard all classes of positions with a black pawn on d7.
After 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 discard all classes of positions with a white pawn on d2.
After 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 discard all classes of positions with 32 men, or 8 white pawns.
After 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 discard all classes of positions with 31 men, or 8 black pawns.
After 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 discard all classes of positions with a black pawn on a7.
"any position with 3 bishops for one player can be discarded"
++ The only way to reach 3 bishops is by underpromoting a pawn. The only reason to underpromote to a bishop is to avoid a draw by stalemate. It happens, but it is very rare.
By the time a pawn reaches the back rank normally one bishop has been traded.
It happens that a pawn promotes with 2 bishops still on the board, but it is very rare.
The combination of both unlikely events: underpromotion to a bishop to avoid stalemate,
and a pawn reaching the back rank with both bishops still on the board never occurs.
You misrepresent your samples to justify your fantasy. the position you cite as in the 10^38 number has already been filtered out by the 10^38. number.
"Schaeffer arrived only at exponent 0.67 for Checkers, but chess programs have evolved more than Chinook, and Chess is easier to prune than Checkers.
The real exponent lies somewhere between 0.5 and 0.67."
this claim is completely unfounded lmfao. In fact, shaeffer literally contradicts you here. maybe you should have read the paper you cite.