@12810
"repeated stupid claims" ++ My assertions are true and valid.
Please show one master game with an underpromotion to a piece not previously captured.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
@12810
"10^20 times smaller than a proof tree for chess"
++ Where does that come from?
Schaeffer had a 10^7 proof tree and a 10^14 search tree for 5*10^20 legal Checkers positions.
Jun 23, 2024
0
#9644
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
If repeating the same mistakes is a valid form of reasoning you are doing great.
Otherwise, you should learn how to read, so that you can find from earlier posts that:
- The set of positions without promotions is woefully inadequate for solving chess. (Exactly like your skillset).
- That "usually" is not a valid step in reasoning.
- That 1 in a million legal chess positions is of the order of 10^40 positions, so any arguments based on "1 in a million" events (extrapolated unreliably from master chess!) not being likely is kind of stupid.
So far as I can see, Elroch, you're repeating the same mistakes. Firstly, your belief that Zermelo's theorem can be used to prove that chess can be represented mathematically is a childish mistake.
Every knowledgeable person agrees that chess not only can be, but is, represented digitally, thus mathematically. No-one needs to prove it, and no-one uses Zermelo's theorem to do so.
Your problem is that you don't know what a mathematical representation is.
The idea that mathematical induction can be used to map a solution of the simplest linearly solveable games to chess is a childish error. They are mutually incommensurable and therefore the mathematical induction becomes philosophical induction. You are unintelligent not to understand that. Used in that sense, Zermelo's Theorem is bogus.
Here you are exhibiting narcissism by claiming better understanding not only than Zermelo but than everyone who has worked in or studied the field since, while simultaneously revealing your lack of understanding. It's not even as if Zermelo's theorem is difficult - first year undergraduates would have no problem.
Secondly, you actually claimed (twice!) that you could write a program to represent chess mathematically. If you could do that, then you should do it since it would make you world famous. But it was another invention or pretence.
No it wouldn't, because it's no big deal.
Every program that generates a tablebase represents a subset of chess mathematically and generates a strong solution of every position in the tablebase.
Very little change would be needed to make it generate a 32-piece tablebase (it would just be impractical to run and store the output, a strong solution of every chess position). It's not representing chess that is the barrier to solving chess, it is the size of the computation.
The really amusing thing was that you claimed to be supported by intellectual heavyweights such as playerafar, Dio, BigChessplayer, Rattigan and others. How can they possibly lend weight to anyone's arguments? You seem to have no conception as to how ridiculous that is!
They have failed to meet the ultimate criterion of quality - boosting your ego?
You haven't satisfied me that chess can be represented mathematically and your arguments fall apart because of that, since you criticise inductive reasoning in tygxc while taking great pains to unsuccessfully hide the fact that you rely on it yourself. You have no-one with any credentials to back you up and indeed, anyone with credentials isn't going to be seen dead supporting you. What a shame.
I would always prefer to enlighten. Let's try. Do you accept that tictactoe can be represented mathematically? How about checkers? Other games that have been rigorously solved?
Jun 23, 2024
0
#9645
tygxc wrote:
@12810
"repeated stupid claims" ++ My assertions are true and valid.
Please show one master game with an underpromotion to a piece not previously captured.
You seem to have forgotten. I posted this one for you near the start of the thread.
Jun 23, 2024
0
#9646
@Optimissed, here is access to a mathematical representation of all chess positions with 7 or fewer pieces on the board:
And here is a paper about a mathematical representation of checkers to prove its game theoretic value.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231216842_Checkers_Is_Solved
Jun 23, 2024
0
#9647
Elroch wrote:
@Optimissed, here is access to a mathematical representation of all chess positions with 7 or fewer pieces on the board:
No it's not.
These positions, for example, are not represented.
Jun 23, 2024
0
#9648
Optimissed wrote:
Sorry, Rattigan, I'm not answering you. You don't have the credentials to make my trouble worthwhile. Neither does Elroch, for that matter. I like intelligent, honest people.
Well many thanks for that. It's bad enough when you answer something I ask you. Starting to answer me when I didn't ask you anything in the first place would be very tedious.
chess has been solved by my toaster bro yall don't understand
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Sorry, Rattigan, I'm not answering you. You don't have the credentials to make my trouble worthwhile. Neither does Elroch, for that matter. I like intelligent, honest people.
Well many thanks for that. It's bad enough when you answer something I ask you. Starting to answer me when I didn't ask you anything in the first place would be very tedious.
I didn't see anything he was replying to either...careful, this is usually when he accuses people of deleting posts rather than let his infirmities sit there on open display.
Jun 23, 2024
0
#9651
Optimissed wrote:
English draughts was the limit that Zermelo's could be stretched to and even that was admitted to be a "weak solution". But draughts is linear in a way that chess isn't.
Mathematical induction is a very basic, deductively valid mapping. It can't be used to link to chess. That's bogus but it isn't anything to be surprised by. Victorian theoreticians were often untrustworthy and I'm just surprised you were taken in by it.
A tip to save you some effort @Optimissed. Simply copy the sentence, "I haven't the faintest idea what any of this is about", then, whenever you feel inclined to post, just paste it into the text area. It will convey exactly the same message without all that typing.
If you want to add some insults just type them after.
Optimissed wrote:
I only accuse people of deleting posts when they have deleted posts and they pretend they haven't. I had no idea that you are admired far and wide for your honesty, such that everything you write here is completely dependable and trustworthy.
Well now you know... 
You have yet to be correct about a single post deletion.
Jun 23, 2024
0
#9653
playerafar wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
playerafar wrote:
Hey shig - tygxc doesn't have to shut up.
What are you doing here?
tbf it would be highly beneficial to all parties involved if tygxc DID shut up.
MEGA - have you noticed that nobody ever agrees with tygxc?
Hahahahaahahahah.
But he's not afraid.
some people think he's onto something at first, but they ALWAYS turn against him in time.
Jun 23, 2024
0
#9654
FYI optimissed you should realize that the zermelo stuff applies independently of game complexity.
you should also realize that your definition of a 'mathematical representation' is improper, and that's causing your misunderstanding.
you are interpreting 'mathematical representation' as a human-written algorithm to guarantee and verify a solution of the game.
but a game as a mathematical object/representation is just the ruleset of the game expressed in logical language. human abilities and technology have no bearing here.
Jun 23, 2024
0
#9655
MARattigan wrote:
Ply count 0, O-O-O available
Elroch wrote:
@Optimissed, here is access to a mathematical representation of all chess positions with 7 or fewer pieces on the board:
No it's not.
These positions, for example, are not represented.
Basic chess positions, as for pretty much all the numbers bandied around. I don't think a single number has been posted even incorporating moves to zero (just multiply the basic numbers by 50 or similar).
And I'll repeat again, basic chess positions are entirely adequate for a weak solution of chess (dealing with a 50 move rule in generating a proof tree is simple). And it is such a weak solution that is the focus of the majority of this discussion - it is the meaning of "solved" that is being addressed.
Your point that strong solution of FIDE rules chess is much more impractical is correct, but not so interesting. There is no strong solution of (basic rules) checkers yet!
Jun 23, 2024
0
#9656
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
English draughts was the limit that Zermelo's could be stretched to and even that was admitted to be a "weak solution". But draughts is linear in a way that chess isn't.
Mathematical induction is a very basic, deductively valid mapping. It can't be used to link to chess. That's bogus but it isn't anything to be surprised by. Victorian theoreticians were often untrustworthy and I'm just surprised you were taken in by it.
A tip to save you some effort @Optimissed. Simply copy the sentence, "I haven't the faintest idea what any of this is about", then, whenever you feel inclined to post, just paste it into the text area. It will convey exactly the same message without all that typing.
If you want to add some insults just type them after.
It is amusing that @Optimissed is unaware that mathematical theorems (such as the general form of Zermelo's theorem) apply to a class of objects with given properties and that the size of an example is irrelevant to the truth (unless it is explicitly part of the conditions of the theorem).
Jun 23, 2024
0
#9657
Elroch wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
English draughts was the limit that Zermelo's could be stretched to and even that was admitted to be a "weak solution". But draughts is linear in a way that chess isn't.
Mathematical induction is a very basic, deductively valid mapping. It can't be used to link to chess. That's bogus but it isn't anything to be surprised by. Victorian theoreticians were often untrustworthy and I'm just surprised you were taken in by it.
A tip to save you some effort @Optimissed. Simply copy the sentence, "I haven't the faintest idea what any of this is about", then, whenever you feel inclined to post, just paste it into the text area. It will convey exactly the same message without all that typing.
If you want to add some insults just type them after.
It is amusing that @Optimissed is unaware that mathematical theorems (such as the general form of Zermelo's theorem) apply to a class of objects with given properties and that the size of an example is irrelevant to the truth (unless it is explicitly part of the conditions of the theorem).
Yes. O had that crazy 'mapping' idea and apparently invoked 'semantics' on Dio's use of the word crumpet. It was very lightweight and 'pseudo' by O. But that's not new.
Led to him taking days off.
Jun 23, 2024
0
#9658
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
playerafar wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
playerafar wrote:
Hey shig - tygxc doesn't have to shut up.
What are you doing here?
tbf it would be highly beneficial to all parties involved if tygxc DID shut up.
MEGA - have you noticed that nobody ever agrees with tygxc?
Hahahahaahahahah.
But he's not afraid.
some people think he's onto something at first, but they ALWAYS turn against him in time.
I maintain that tygxc is a Giant in the positive sense of the word - compared with the O-person.
And the way tygxc goes at things its like he Wants us to oppose him.
Jun 23, 2024
0
#9659
Optimissed wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
FYI optimissed you should realize that the zermelo stuff applies independently of game complexity.
you should also realize that your definition of a 'mathematical representation' is improper, and that's causing your misunderstanding.
you are interpreting 'mathematical representation' as a human-written algorithm to guarantee and verify a solution of the game.
but a game as a mathematical object/representation is just the ruleset of the game expressed in logical language. human abilities and technology have no bearing here.
That isn't possible. It's like you don't understand the difference between second order differential equations and your mummy adding up the shopping list. Come to think, I don't expect you do understand the difference. You're clueless. That post is pretentious gobbledegook and you could not win an argument with me in a months of Sundays.
I highly doubt you know how to do differential equations lol, nor are they relevant here. either way, that was a couple years ago for me.
that "gobbledygook" was 7th grade maths btw.
Again, repeated stupid claims is not a valid form of reasoning.
You take tiny samples of not provably optimal play and generalise to a set that is almost incomprehensibly bigger. The number of ICCF positions in particular is MINISCULE! But even the master database (containing play that is up to 1400 points weaker than optimal) only contains around a billion positions. Even ignoring the absurdity of suggesting these are optimal, it's only about 10^37 as many as the set of all legal positions, and perhaps 10^20 times smaller than a proof tree for chess.