tygxc you cannot find a single comment by me on this thread that is wrong that i have not already acknowledged as such.
btw tygxc, ive presented your arguments to some friends, and there's currently a division, not whether you're right or not, but whether you are trolling or not.
@tygxc would do well to discuss things with one of the best AIs (Claude 3.5 Sonnet, ChatGPT 4o / Bing AI Chat) to clarify some points, since he does not believe humans who have more knowledge than him. Remember, these models are trained on a large subset of all human knowledge. While they are not 100% reliable supplementary questions usually resolve any initial inaccuracies (for full disclosure, there were examples of this in the raw output for this query). Don't use AIs as encyclopedias, use them for intellectual stimulation!
Here is the sort of thing I mean (edited for compactness and quality)
Me >: Hallo Claude. Is it necessary for a weak solution of a game to deal with every legal opponent move or just some subset of these?
Claude >: A weak solution of a game refers to a strategy that guarantees a player the best possible outcome
A weak solution must deal with every legal opponent move, not just a subset. Here's why:
1. Completeness requirement: The weak solution must provide a strategy that works against any possible sequence of opponent moves, as long as the player following the solution plays optimally. If it only covered a subset of opponent moves, it wouldn't be a true solution.
2.Tree structure: Conceptually, a weak solution can be thought of as a decision tree that covers all possible game paths resulting from optimal play. Each node in this tree must account for all legal opponent moves at that point.
3. It's important to note that while a weak solution must account for all legal opponent moves, it doesn't necessarily provide the optimal counter for every possible game state - only those that can arise from optimal play by both sides. This is what makes it "weak" compared to a strong solution, which would provide optimal moves for every possible game state, including those arising from suboptimal play.
=========================================================================
The point at the end is an interesting nicety. A drawing strategy in a weak solution does not have to play accurately against bad opponent moves because it only has the objective of achieving a draw. For example, the opponent can blunder mate in 1 and the strategy can just play to achieve a draw and still meet the definition. But to have no way of finding out what move to play is NOT compatible with the definition.
@12742
"blame tromp's data" ++ No, I do not blame the data.
Tromp found (4.82 +- 0.03) * 10^44 legal positions, but as the 3 random samples show the vast majority of those legal positions have multiple promotions from both sides and thus cannot result from optimal play by both sides
Right. Silly me, I was thinking promotions to queens and knights are a perfectly normal aspect of chess (with large numbers of multiple promotions in the tiny less than 10^7 games master chess dataset) and often optimal (proponent ) or legal (opponent) regardless of any previous promotions. But I now see you have taken the tygxc-logical move to generalize bishops and rooks to queens and knights.
Masterful!
nah bro yall are ganging up an tygxc
because he's literally just spouting BS. the longer you stay on this thread the more you realize how much tygxc deserves to be clowned on.
he is more of a clown than ronald mcdonald and more of a joker than joker
ik i’ve been here for quite a bit
what's your verdict, do you think tygxc believes what he's saying or do you think he's trolling
tygxc im still waiting on your response to the fact that i wasted my professors time to tell me what i already knew about your fallacies.
ik i’ve been here for quite a bit
what's your verdict, do you think tygxc believes what he's saying or do you think he's trolling
judging by his stuborness he might actually believe all that
utter buffoon behavior, admit when you’re wrong
tygxc im still waiting on your response to the fact that i wasted my professors time to tell me what i already knew about your fallacies.
He's online, he's not playing chess, he's not replying
Only one thing he's doing: downvoting
yeah he’s prob salty
Chess has not been solved and is unlikely to be solved with current technology, future advancements might change this. Chess2Play ( earn cash ) However, due to the game's immense complexity, it remains one of the most challenging puzzles in computational game theory.
Did you think you were going to just slip your ad in unnoticed?
nah bro yall are ganging up an tygxc
Ganging up on someone in a social situation is not nice.
"Ganging up" on someone in terms of making claims about facts and evidence is a useful social function which can be compared to distributive computing i.e. different people come up with different ideas, and then the community rejects the bad ones. In such a situation it's not bad to be wrong since you were just doing your job. The failing here is that tygxc is either unwilling or unable to understand. In normal human communities he'd be ignored or kicked out, but chess.com forums are very lightly moderated meaning he's free to keep posting nonsense, and so others are constantly pointing out it's nonsense.
This is the crux of the problem...lax moderation with no structure and no community manager. Well, let me qualify that...these positions are in fact filled, but the people in them have been told to let the forums rot in favor of live chat, Discord, etc.
i devved some sw (w/a great big shoutout to reddit & github...sooo TY ! ) & got exactly 54,986,815,831,389 hard moves for the first 10-ply. i kinda expect #'s like under 10^43 to be way-way too dwarfy. this includes all mates in 2,3,4, & 5...all (14) en passants...K/Q-side castles...& all 5-move marchdowns to all (4) piece promos.
so im short...if smarter ppls calcs are right (69,352,859,712,417). im trusting they took in 'quick' mates. if not ?...it'd reduce their #'s.
i devved some sw (w/a great big shoutout to reddit & github...sooo TY ! ) & got exactly 54,986,815,831,389 hard moves for the first 10-ply. i kinda expect #'s like under 10^43 to be way-way too dwarfy. this includes all mates in 2,3,4, & 5...all (14) en passants...K/Q-side castles...& all 5-move marchdowns to all (4) piece promos.
so im short...if smarter ppls calcs are right (69,352,859,712,417). im trusting they took in 'quick' mates. if not ?...it'd reduce their #'s a hobunch.
I'm so confused
i devved some sw (w/a great big shoutout to reddit & github...sooo TY ! ) & got exactly 54,986,815,831,389 hard moves for the first 10-ply. i kinda expect #'s like under 10^43 to be way-way too dwarfy. this includes all mates in 2,3,4, & 5...all (14) en passants...K/Q-side castles...& all 5-move marchdowns to all (4) piece promos.
so im short...if smarter ppls calcs are right (69,352,859,712,417). im trusting they took in 'quick' mates. if not ?...it'd reduce their #'s a hobunch.
I'm so confused
This is how to act smart and dumb at the same time
i devved some sw (w/a great big shoutout to reddit & github...sooo TY ! ) & got exactly 54,986,815,831,389 hard moves for the first 10-ply. i kinda expect #'s like under 10^43 to be way-way too dwarfy. this includes all mates in 2,3,4, & 5...all (14) en passants...K/Q-side castles...& all 5-move marchdowns to all (4) piece promos.
so im short...if smarter ppls calcs are right (69,352,859,712,417). im trusting they took in 'quick' mates. if not ?...it'd reduce their #'s.
idk we would have to see the rest of the calculations
hey tygxc, since you seem soooo interested in trying to inform people about your fantasy, why dont you just update the "obsolete" wiki article so you can reach the most people possible?
im sure they wont find all of the same errors that i, my math professors, and everyone else on the forum pointed out.
surely they wont pay attention to how you assign one node to each position where you assume perfect play, where by your own calculations would require over a billion nodes per position.