@Optimissed sometimes fantasises that either all the people who disagree with him are alts of some single Nemesis, or that there are secret cabal meetings to co-ordinate the imagined war against him.
Maybe I should create alts to disagree with him make his fantasy a reality
Besides I hardly find anyone interfering anyone in this thread other than maybe mega,or dio so I dunno why he's pointing me out lol
And the only reason is because I disagree with Elroch and I don't like being bullied. That's the entire sum total reason he does it. Is that not pathetic? Can't even argue for himself. The very fact he doesn't object to the trolls supporting him is contemptible and it completely discredits him.
When someone repeatedly chooses to walk face first into buzz saws, you can't accuse the buzz saws of being bullies. Just stop making a fool of yourself by adamantly claiming things you have no knowledge about and your troubles would miraculously cease...
@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).
The first position is a basic chess position. It's not covered in any published tablebase I know of. Of course the position after White's next move is, so that particular example doesn't represent much of a loss, but here's another.
As for the numbers, I suggested in the first few pages @tygxc might like to account for the 50 move rule and amend his 10^44 to 4.85x10^46, which he accepted, but about two pages later it was 10^44 again. (I think multiplying by 100 should be closer than 50, but only with a correct approach to a forward search.)
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.
You don't need to keep repeating it, I've already said the same several times. The Syzygy generation uses only basic rules positions. (Whether it produces a proof tree, I don't know. What's one of those?)
And yes we're talking about a weak solution, but I have also been talking about weakly solving and in particular how many nodes of the game tree might be visited with what I think is @tygxc's original method of not solving (think, because he refused to produce any exact description, and original because he now proposes to change the FIDE laws to make any moves not in a few particular ICCF games illegal and call it solved).
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!
Nor of KPvK under competition rules.
I mean, Elroch protects himself with playerafar, Dio, bigchessplayer etc. Just trolls who never had a thought in their entire lives but who habitually use insults in order to protect their master. It would seem pathetic to most normal people.
Sane people figure out you are delusional pretty quick, actually.
@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).
The first position is a basic chess position. It's not covered in any published tablebase I know of.
This is just a minor deficiency which is inessential. There is no reason that 3 piece tablebase can't include castling. A hypothetical 32 piece one certainly would have to!
Of course the position after White's next move is, so that particular example doesn't represent much of a loss, but here's another.
As for the numbers, I suggested in the first few pages @tygxc might like to account for the 50 move rule and amend his 10^44 to 4.85x10^46, which he accepted, but about two pages later it was 10^44 again. (I think multiplying by 100 should be closer, but only with a correct approach to a forward search.)
The basic chess tablebase doesn't need a ply count, but adding DTZ broadens its application sufficiently for use in a weak solution of FIDE rules chess. A strong solution is a whole other order of unpleasantness!
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.
You don't need to keep repeating it, I've already said the same several times. The Syzygy generation uses only basic rules positions. (Whether it produces a proof tree, I don't know. What's one of those?)
A proof tree is a tree of positions linked by legal moves. It includes all legal opponent moves at every point, and all its leaf nodes are positions where the value is clear (eg in the tablebase, but a single repetition suffices as a draw also, as the opponent has to be able to avoid these to refute a drawing strategy).
It thereby proves the value of the game is at least the min (from the point of view of the proponent) of the values of those leaf nodes.
Of course, you have one proof tree for white where the values of the leaf nodes are all at least a draw, and the same for black.
And yes we're talking about a weak solution, but I have also been talking about weakly solving and in particular how many nodes of the game tree might be visited with what I think is @tygxc's original method of not solving (think, because he refused to produce any exact description, and original because he now proposes to change the FIDE laws to make any moves not in a few particular ICCF games illegal and call it solved).
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!
Nor of KPvK under competition rules.
@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).
The first position is a basic chess position. It's not covered in any published tablebase I know of.
This is just a minor deficiency which is inessential. There is no reason that 3 piece tablebase can't include castling. A hypothetical 32 piece one certainly would have to!
I was simply pointing out that you'd omitted to mention that minor deficiency. It would mean the production of several thousand new tablebases, which I think is why it's still a minor deficiency as of now.
Of course the position after White's next move is, so that particular example doesn't represent much of a loss, but here's another.
As for the numbers, I suggested in the first few pages @tygxc might like to account for the 50 move rule and amend his 10^44 to 4.85x10^46, which he accepted, but about two pages later it was 10^44 again. (I think multiplying by 100 should be closer, but only with a correct approach to a forward search.)
The basic chess tablebase doesn't need a ply count, but adding DTZ broadens its application sufficiently for use in a weak solution of FIDE rules chess. A strong solution is a whole other order of unpleasantness!
Pretty much what I said below.
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.
You don't need to keep repeating it, I've already said the same several times. The Syzygy generation uses only basic rules positions. (Whether it produces a proof tree, I don't know. What's one of those?)
A proof tree is a tree of positions linked by legal moves. It includes all legal opponent moves at every point, and all its leaf nodes are positions where the value is clear (eg in the tablebase, but a single repetition suffices as a draw also, as the opponent has to be able to avoid these to refute a drawing strategy).
So in that case the structure produced by Syzygy is presumably not a proof tree for competition rules chess on the grounds that it's not a tree (or even two trees) and the nodes are not positions (at least not in the same game) but equivalence classes of positions without evaluations common across each equivalence class. Would that be correct?
It thereby proves the value of the game is at least the min (from the point of view of the proponent) of the values of those leaf nodes.
Of course, you have one proof tree for white where the values of the leaf nodes are all at least a draw, and the same for black.
And yes we're talking about a weak solution, but I have also been talking about weakly solving and in particular how many nodes of the game tree might be visited with what I think is @tygxc's original method of not solving (think, because he refused to produce any exact description, and original because he now proposes to change the FIDE laws to make any moves not in a few particular ICCF games illegal and call it solved).
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!
Nor of KPvK under competition rules.
found this gem, later tygxc claimed that this was a conjecture made in tromps work--the work that wasnt even out yet
to protect their master
u mean like a yorkiepom ?
@12816
"You seem to have forgotten. I posted this one for you near the start of the thread."
++ A troll blitz game of Nakamura does not count.
And the Lasker trap does not count either.
@12816
"You seem to have forgotten. I posted this one for you near the start of the thread."
++ A troll blitz game of Nakamura does not count.
And the Lasker trap does not count either.
Is that from the laws of chess? I can't see anything about trolls in there? It's allowed, I think.
How about Syzygy? That's the only actual solution we've got for any competition rules chess. It will recommend promotion to four anythings, take your pick. Play it at whatever time controls you like, 5 days a move, 10 days a move, whatever.
If and when we get the 10 man Syzygy tablebases it will recommend more knights than Nakamura from this position.
But unlike the non solutions you've so far proposed, Syzygy will tell you all the moves to get the best result from the positions it solves, whatever your opponent plays. As I mentioned earlier, your non solution is no bloody use to anyone, it's no bloody use at all.
Is Syzygy trolling too?
What about your non solution? Will that troll too?
We can't tell without a reasonable description of how you plan to produce it (a flowchart or pseudocode or just a detailed account in English) as you were asked to produce a year or two ago but never got round to.
That is what determines what counts. Big red telephones don't count.
Perhaps you might try it now. Without it you have no justification for even starting with 4.85x10^46 instead of something enormously bigger.
The first position is a basic chess position. It's not covered in any published tablebase I know of.
This is just a minor deficiency which is inessential. There is no reason that 3 piece tablebase can't include castling. A hypothetical 32 piece one certainly would have to!
I was simply pointing out that you'd omitted to mention that minor deficiency. It would mean the production of several thousand new tablebases, which I think is why it's still a minor deficiency as of now.
I am not sure why most tablebases don't include positions with castling. It would not add much computational demand. I suppose it is a combination of being of not being of much practical value (I am not sure castling in a position with 7 or fewer pieces has ever played a role in a real game) and being an unaesthetic complication.
So in that case the structure produced by Syzygy is presumably not a proof tree for competition rules chess on the grounds that it's not a tree (or even two trees) and the nodes are not positions (at least not in the same game) but equivalence classes of positions without evaluations common across each equivalence class. Would that be correct?
A proof tree is the exhibition of a strategy that achieves a value for a player (usually ending where a node is in the tablebase). In that sense, given trust of the validity of the tablebase, the proof tree for positions in the table is already complete for each position: it tells you the value of a position and provides you with a perfect strategy: - always play the best move in the tablebase!
You could of course generate an explicit proof tree (one that could be used independently of the tablebase, and might be more compact than it) by very simple recursion as follows.
Finally prune all the positions never reached, leaving half an explicit weak solution.
It might be interesting to look at the sizes of some weak solutions generated like this for tablebase positions. While they would be expected to be quite compact for winning strategies because there is a depth to mate that is directional, it's not so clear for drawing strategies. Syzygy just says "Draw" with no information like "depth to repetition" (itself not ideal).
(The only true leaf nodes in a strategy/proof tree are mates and stalemates. When a position is repeated in a drawing strategy, the strategy just continues to execute and will get the draw according to FIDE rules).
@Optimissed sometimes fantasises that either all the people who disagree with him are alts of some single Nemesis, or that there are secret cabal meetings to co-ordinate the imagined war against him.
And since Optimissed constantly projects (constantly dishonestly accuses others of being and doing what he does) that suggests that its Optimissed who is using alts.
This next from the new 'solved' forum:
Good post by MEGA
"ah yes, optimissed. baseless insults instead of actual arguments. what's great is that I don't even need to warn people about you, your posts have so little substance to them people figure it out almost instantly on their own.
Considering how middle school math topics stumped you in other threads, it's a *little* hard to believe that your maths education is what you say, as well as the fact that not a single math topic that you've presented or interacted with has gone beyond the early highschool level. You might have studied maths into colelge, but that doesnt mean that I (and others) didnt learn your "university" maths in middle school or highschool.
I'm not even writing this out as a defense of myself. I feel no need to defend myself from you. I am writing this because I feel you yourself need to know how you are considered by myself and others."
------------------------------------
MEGA is correct. O 'needs to know'. And O is Optimissed.
But O operates in a zone whereby if enough people don't 'figure it out on their own' temporarily - then he can and does live in that zone.
His 'nirvana' that he makes his life mission - is to get opening posters to block anybody who opposes him - and to get the chess.com staff to mute anybody who does too.
Been his 'life's work' for ten years now. On this website.
But Result Instead: O gets blocked by some of the best posters and himself gets muted by chess.com including twice very recently.
----------------------------------
In the latest installment - he finally took a self-imposed rest for three days - absolutely essential for him to avoid three mutes in a row by chess,.com.
Why mention?
Even though posters can figure him out on their own - he gets temporary 'advantage' by them getting blindsided for a while. Especially people unfamiliar. Or kids.
Why doesn't he and people like him just make their own forums and block whoever they don't like?
Because then they don't get to complain and be masochistic is why.
----------------------------------------------------
and now - the forum topic.
Why is it shifting here from the other 'never be solved' forum?
the opening poster there doesn't have an account.
For another - a new forum creates some new approach and new dynamics.
For another - new opening posters get to put the forum topic and questions their way.
And many prefer that to just continuing with the same forum.
----------------------------
Is it a great topic?
The short answer is yes.
Because it pertains to the game of chess as a whole.
Part of putting it in perspective.
And is relevant to how it was designed and evolved.
The most popular indoor game of all time?
Well - cards is popular too but that's often for money. And is usually a group game.
How is the most popular indoor one-on-one game in world history designed?
What was in mind?
Chess didn't start with any one person.
It evolved into its current form.
In western europe. (although its previous forms started in India).
The development of chess in its modern form was centered in France - which was also the geographically central country in the development of math and science.
For hundreds of years the greats in math and science were born and lived and operated in France or in very nearby countries. Until the 1800s when America entered that picture too.
---------------------------
And computers have helped it - instead of hurting it.
Chess was designed and evolved - to Not be solved.
And before computers too.
And tygxc has already admitted that it can't be solved with current technology.
So the discussion over the last two years has revolved around 'solving alternatives'.
In other words - what actually happens.
And other interpretations of 'solving'.
Skipped reading O's post just now. The one above this one.
He began his post with an invalid premise.
Dead giveaway and blunder he constantly makes.
He wants one on one 'you and me' pingpong now but is constantly deprived.
Somebody else will make a better post. By next login probably.
Before I log off ...
another invalid beginning by O.
Nobody 'must'. He has no authority.
Skipped the rest of that too.
ive always felt more slavey than mistress. not sure why. id rather be led than followed i guess. louzy in leadership me
chess has been solved by my toaster bro yall don't understand
u needta ease up on the pop tarts there
you actually claimed (twice!) that you could write a program to represent chess mathematically.
yeah. lets see what that coconut a urs is made a.
i like how deep tygxc goes...he took me somewhere w/ 12790
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P2kzzL1LR4
@Optimissed sometimes fantasises that either all the people who disagree with him are alts of some single Nemesis, or that there are secret cabal meetings to co-ordinate the imagined war against him.