Quantum computing & artificial intelligence will solve it BUT..... as it relates to competition between humans it won't impact it.
Machines allow us to move faster than humans but we still have foot races. There are millions of examples. Heck, computers ALREADY play chess far better than any human but human chess has grown even MORE popular while chess engines have grown in strength. It doesn't seem to make people want to quit.
If AI is actually possible. I don't think it is.
All there is is synthetic AI. They don't even know how the brain works, after all!
The ideas as I've explained them are very simple .... even overly simplistic. But they represent an attempt at looking at the problems from first principles. To achieve any credibility in my eyes and nobody else's you should address them. I have no idea if you are the only person here capable of following them if you wish to.
You aren't addressing the problem of how the analysis is retrieved, for one thing. You talk about flags but have you considered the realities of the analysis? You can't have or you would be adressing my ideas.
Fixed.
If AI is actually possible. I don't think it is.
All there is is synthetic AI. They don't even know how the brain works, after all!
The goal of AI is not to build a scarecrow with a perfect facsimile of a human brain. Maybe you imagine that conscious thought is gift bestowed on human beings by a higher power that is meant only for us? It's an evolutionary trait. Intelligent design (by humanity, not a higher power) in a directed fashion can and will produce AI faster than evolution did the job for us 
. Whether that AI takes the form of an intelligence that can pass a Turing test is not really the litmus test.
I guess we'll just add this to the list of branches of science and technology that you don't believe in...
My son works in AI, according to his job description. He sets up, guides and co-ordinates teams of programmers, mainly in the USA. I haven't discussed it with him for quite a while.
I like it when you and I get on. Please help to keep it pleasant. Thankyou.
Re the other thing that the jury's still out on, the Covid thingy, I'm happy to report than my son's "other half" finally qualified as a doctor on Friday. She's a specialist in infectious diseases, which obviously includes Covid, and has just started a well-earned break from work, after no doubt saving lots of lives during the pandemic! She starts work again in two months at the same hospital, with a different job.
There's someone arguing that a "weak solution" could be performed in five years. They think that Stockfish could do it, on cloud computers but don't understand the positional assessment processes that would need to be involved, to make a solution of chess even remotely viable. And those arguing with that person don't understand that either, or they would have pointed it out. There's no appreciation of reality and it is the same with the attempt to magically apply the weak solution to a strong solving process, without the necessary algorithms to achieve it. If the other posters had realised that, the long-running argument within this and other threads would have been over almost as soon as it started. But they don't realise it. No-one has pointed it out. They all allow themselves to be sidetracked and that is why I decided to try to analyse what was happening. You seem uncomfortable with the results, which show that no-one has been thinking properly and efficiently.
I guess you missed where I have pointed this out to Tygxc in every single thread where he posts his mistaken notions that I run into. It has also been pointed out by many other posters here in this thread, as well as Pfren, BlueEmu, et al in other threads. I'm not sure how you've missed all this, but I suspect it's because your definition of "positional assessment processes" has some rather personal and narrow constraints that eliminate everybody but you from being "correct" .
Nobody has pointed out anything about "There's no appreciation of reality and it is the same with the attempt to magically apply the weak solution to a strong solving process, without the necessary algorithms to achieve it." because it's just fluff, and nobody in these discussions has ever seriously dug into a strong solution given the massive undertaking producing a weak solution represents. If the weak solution ends up being solved by some massive algorithmic breakthroughs that also knock out the strong solution, well, great 
. But there's no indication whatsoever that this is even possible, so it is currently pointless to talk about. I mean, human beings and engines still cannot even decide with 100% accuracy if trading a bishop for knight is called for in various given positions.
There's a nice family pic. The doctor on the left, the AI expert central and the person who reluctantly puts up with me on the right. With a nice family pic like that, taken in our front room just before Christmas, who can fail to be friends? Oh, there's a dog in the middle. Not a bundle of old rags but an expert in being a dog. Forgotten its name.
There's a nice family pic. The doctor on the left, the AI expert central and the person who reluctantly puts up with me on the right. With a nice family pic like that, taken in our front room just before Christmas, who can fail to be friends? Oh, there's a dog in the middle. Not a bundle of old rags but an expert in being a dog. Forgotten its name.
Fine and well, but ultimately, it will always come back to what is written. Pleasant produces pleasant. Civility produces civility. Pointed observations produce pointed observations. Condescension produces condescension. Etc.
Ralfey. The dog's Ralfey.
The ideas as I've explained them may seem very simple .... even overly simplistic. But they represent an attempt at looking at the problems from first principles. To achieve any credibility you should address them. I know perfectly well that you are the only person here capable of following them if you wish to.
You aren't addressing the problem of how the analysis is retrieved, for one thing. You talk about flags but have you considered the realities of the analysis? You can't have or you would be adressing my ideas.
Well, for a strong solution in the form of a tablebase, what's the problem? The technicalities of accessing it are solved (for smaller analogs of chess).
For a weak solution an analog of Chinook is clearly a plausible paradigm. Roughly speaking this consists of the combination of an opening book and a tablebase that meet in the middle. It is easy to imagine (but impractical to implement) something very similar for chess. Eg a 16 piece tablebase (almost certainly not every position because many would not be needed) and an opening book containing every legal black move and with all the leaf nodes having 16 pieces (except those that end early).
Somebody, somewhere, must be very, very confused, because a situation has somehow been generated where no-one here is talking much sense. That someone isn't me. It's whoever has put these ideas in the collective mind of you lot!
Occam's Razor. Apply it.
Hi Btickler.
I've heard of this "Occam's razor" before. Are you familiar with Redpill78?
Occam's razor is a very central concept in science and other rational discourse. It is remarkable that it is so ancient.
Occam's razor is a very central concept in science and other rational discourse. It is remarkable that it is so ancient.
Not really, I'd consider "ancient" to be BC, but this was in the 1300s
In this case, I'd consider ancient to include 1300, because it was by comparison with the Enlightenment, as the time at which modern science began. I used the word to emphasise how relatively old it was.
I would agree it is most commonly used for examples like ancient Greece and ancient Rome which are older still.
I
will
Yes I'm sure whatever you say is correct. I will add this and we can see what others make of it, because I will not allow you to push me out of this thread.
Some of the posters on this and other threads make multiple errors. Firstly, they don't understand that the "strong solution" is merely a vast permutation of all possible move orders within chess.
You seem to have a habit of making errors when rashly claiming others make errors. For example in believing the smart people that have achieved the likes of solving checkers are mistaken in thinking there is a difference between a weak solution and a strong solution.
A 32-piece table base provides a strong solution of chess (very simple instructions suffice to explain how to play perfectly using one). Since the number of legal positions is hugely less than the number of legal games, there is not much point in a game-centric viewpoint - "permutation of all possible move orders". (Recall a strong solution needs to deal optimally with every legal position - that's the definition).
A strong solution must enable easy selection of a good move. One could be stored for each position, which would provide a strong solution that does not contain all the information in a tablebase, but rather more efficient would be to store a single field with one of the following, depending on the position value:
This suffices because it is easy to find all legal moves, lookup the positions that can be reached and see which of them achieves the desired objective (by looking up the same field and finding if it indicates progress).
I will observe that without a 50 move or repetition of position rule it is arguable that all you need is a ternary flag saying "win/draw/loss" for each position. In a winning position this would allow you to win eventually by on every move randomly picking one of the moves that leads to a losing position for the opponent.
The assertion that this provides a strong solution is arguable - it depends on probability 1 of reaching a checkmate eventually being good enough! It is possible (but with probability zero) that the algorithm would accidentally avoid ever reaching mate.
The wins would be shockingly long if this horrible (but simple) algorithm was applied! Eg imagine if you played a rook ending by randomly picking a move that did not lose (or stalemate) every time. You would need a lot of random wandering to hit a sequence that forced mate.
The ideas as I've explained them may seem very simple .... even overly simplistic. But they represent an attempt at looking at the problems from first principles. To achieve any credibility you should address them. I know perfectly well that you are the only person here capable of following them if you wish to.
You aren't addressing the problem of how the analysis is retrieved, for one thing. You talk about flags but have you considered the realities of the analysis? You can't have or you would be adressing my ideas.