@Optimissed has a point tho, all of you except him seem to be going in circles. he kind of is the only one bringing up new topics while @Elroch and all the others just seem to contradict him no matter how valid his argument is.
There one other that's not going in circles is megan s but he's just not talking to the other people because he doesn't want to deal with trolls besides txgc(who's not a troll)
@10625
"We can't conclude that perfection has been reached."
++ We can, because all games end in draws.
That can only be if Chess is a draw and if all errors come in pairs that undo each other.
Any unpaired error would cause a decisive game.
False. It could also happen if Chess is a win and all games contains an odd number of half point blunders.
These games are played by the same engine as the ICCF games. The starting position is a win and all games contain an odd number of half point blunders. (Incidentally I've also posted you examples of sets of games that start from a drawn position end each contain an even number > 0 of half point blunders - why do you call that perfection?)
@10630
"which of the quadrillion opposite coloured bishop endings with more than 7 men are known? You do understand that in chess, the exact position of all of the pieces matters?"
++ That is why it takes 2 ICCF (grand)masters to agree on the draw after ample consideration with engines of the exact position when both have no hope of winning. It would be pointless to force them to continue until a 50-moves draw, i.e. 500 days or almost 2 years.
Not all opposite colored bishop endings are draws, but this one is
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1360123
Not all rook endings are draws, but this one is
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1360174
Proof?
A recording of your big red telephone conversation perhaps?
@10655
"the same engine as the ICCF games"
++ And the same time 5 days/move?
Blitz games do not count.
@10656
"Proof?" ++ Because the 2 ICCF (grand)masters after ample consultation of their engines agreed on the draw. Even I can see those are 2 draws.
@10656
"Proof?" ++ Because the 2 ICCF (grand)masters after ample consultation of their engines agreed on the draw. Even I can see those are 2 draws.
"we investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong" ahh logic.
@Optimissed has a point tho, all of you except him seem to be going in circles. he kind of is the only one bringing up new topics while @Elroch and all the others just seem to contradict him no matter how valid his argument is.
the main thing is that with regards to the prospective of solving chess, it is a mostly dead topic.
hypothetical question: how does P vs NP affect chess solving?
P v NP can only be relevant to classes of problems with a size parameter that has no upper bound. For example, solving tictactoe on boards of size N x N. It is about how hard it is to find a solution compared with to verify a solution.
well chess can be expanded to larger boards
Yes, and that was his point. Chess as we play it is only on an 8x8 board, so asking whether it (and it alone) is P or NP isn't an appropriate question.
just because im only interested in the 8x8 solution doesnt mean that the P v NP of a generalized form of chess wouldnt give insight on the 8x8 solution, besides, upon a little more reflection, the verification is on too high an order to apply to p v np
Yes, the same occurred to me. It does seem inconceivable that there could be a polynomial complexity verification for solving a generalisation of a game like chess or checkers to larger board. So, it's the wrong problem for P v NP!
@10656
"Proof?" ++ Because the 2 ICCF (grand)masters after ample consultation of their engines agreed on the draw. Even I can see those are 2 draws.
Billions of potentially crucial branches rejected on the grounds of a zero depth evaluation. What could possibly go wrong?
@10655
"the same engine as the ICCF games"
++ And the same time 5 days/move?
Blitz games do not count.
Your argument doesn't anywhere rely on the time taken to move so all games count. Those games were all at 5 sec fixed time per move, but by all means rerun it at 5 days a move and post the games. I would expect similar results.
In fact, in positions where SF is out of its depth increasing the think time can lead to an increase in the blunder rate.
I already posted for you multiple times an analysis of a series of KNNKP games run at different times ranging from 1 sec to 35 min per move. SF's blunder rate under both basic and competition rules at 35 min per move was greater than its blunder rate at 1 sec per move.
(Again starting from a winning position and all but one containing an odd number of half point blunders under both sets of rules, the exception an even number > 0.)
" at 10^7 positions/second/engine "
why do you continue to make this error when it has been repeatedly pointed out?
you falsely construe nodes as a full positional evaluation.
I know you don't like answering me because you aren't very bright, like the others here.
But why do you continue to challenge tygxc when he has amply demonstrated that he isn't going to change what he's doing? All you're doing is making a kind of noise that the other no-hopers here will like. A bit like someone drowning and you standing on the bank shouting "save him!"
I dont answer you because you dont take the discussion seriously while pretending you do. there is no value in considering somebody who doesn't mean what they say.
Why do you imagine I don't mean what I say? I certainly don't see much value in playing lip service to people who can't understand that they are making fools of themselves by going round and round in circles arguing completely unproductively with tygxc. Elroch isn't bright enough to add anything useful. It's as simple as that.
I do agree that you can't always rely on rules of thumb. But for instance, take the Kp vs KNN ending. There's a diagram used where you can enter the pawn position and you immediately know if it's a win, because it's a rule of thumb that depends on how far advanced the pawn is and which file it's on.
Bad example @Optimissed; it has millions of exceptions. (Very good example actually.)
tygxc and Elroch are too much like each other and they both have weaknesses. The rest of you allow yourselves to be led by them and so can you imagine what it's like for someone who knows their conversation is unproductive and that it can't be anything else? MAR is a troll and deliberately messes around with people by talking rubbish, Dio is a troll who is almost incapable of making arguments concerning subject matter, you hang on Elroch's coat tails. You say you're a second year maths student at university? Act like it. Stop pandering to them and use your brain if you have one. Don't be scared of them. Of course they'll try to make it seem you don't know what you're talking about. That's what they always do and you have to learn sometime or other.
Maybe. Well, I suppose you don't and you can be another failure. I've been too busy to be involved in the past few days, I return and it's the same nothing arguments. Just two fools arguing that black's white or an indistinct shade of grey.
@Optimissed has a point tho, all of you except him seem to be going in circles. he kind of is the only one bringing up new topics while @Elroch and all the others just seem to contradict him no matter how valid his argument is.
the referee stopped the contest, but the law of inertia prevails.
Yes, I do agree with ardutgamersus.
Now, I might not be behaving charitably in putting it down to a complete lack of ability in Elroch, to do much but quote the internet or use GPI and the rest depend on him for input and are just there to rubber stamp his divine offerings. Even so, there isn't even an attempt at making progress. Tygxc has made more progress than the cackling witches, dancing in the moonlight round the herb pot, since ty has definitely updated his take on the matter over the past year and the cauldron mob still back a mathematical solution. I repeat that my son, who is a mathematian, assures me that a mathematical depiction of chess, which reduces the entire game to a set of equations, is impossible and will probably remain impossible.
Therefore, Elroch must be backing a Games Theoretical mathematical interpretation, which can't be accurate, which must be an approximation and which is therefore exactly what he condemns ty for advocating. Touch of hypocrisy?
And of course, he'll accuse me of not understanding a thing, as he always does, whilst being unable to exemplify just what it is I fail to understand, as always. And again, he'll be roundly applauded by the rest of the cackling set, who will consider it another exemplary win for the dark side. It's been going on in this vein for six months.
It only seems that way to you @Optimissed because you really don't know what you're talking about.
The question if chess can be solved is about mathematicics, not about computers. Someone Said the amount of possible moves is infinite, its not. Infinity is actualy infinitly much bigger. Therfore, with enought time (not infinitly Long time
Chess could be solved in the way that we could map every possible move and counter move.
The question if chess can be solved is about mathematicics, not about computers. Someone Said the amount of possible moves is infinite, its not. Infinity is actualy infinitly much bigger. Therfore, with enought time (not infinitly Long time
You obviously ran out of time, but I agree with what you were trying to write.
@10665
"Billions of potentially crucial branches rejected on the grounds of a zero depth evaluation."
++ The ICCF (grand)masters use far more than zero depth.
Those draws are draws indeed.
It is ridiculous to question that.
You cannot ask them to play on until a 50-moves draw.
Chess could be solved in the way that we could map every possible move and counter move.
Except I didn't know what you were trying to write. I think humans could possibly solve it (though probably with some computer assistance) in time, but not by mapping every possible move and counter move. And I really doubt humans will ever have a strong solution.
@Optimissed has a point tho, all of you except him seem to be going in circles. he kind of is the only one bringing up new topics while @Elroch and all the others just seem to contradict him no matter how valid his argument is.