hmmm
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Jul 11, 2024
0
#10423
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch is getting older too
For your enlightenment, everyone is getting older at the same rate in calendar time. I do try to slow the rate according to biological clocks.
and the perceptive and logical errors from him are also coming in thick and fast.
You lack the competence to make such judgements.
Although I'm quite a bit older than either of you, my 169 IQ
There is not the slightest chance that you could score 169 in an IQ test now. If you disagree, lets find a way to test this.
In addition, I believe you are at the very least quoting the highest test score you ever got, which is statistically invalid. You should give the average of all tests you have done, because IQ test scores have a substantial random element. Quoting one is like claiming a chess rating based on one game.
In addition, if that is a score you actually got, it was almost certainly outside the range over which the test was valid. Based on other information, I don't believe your claim without documentary proof. You don't have a good record of reliability.
More importantly, merely referring to this (often) indicates a surprisingly immature and foolish viewpoint for a 73 year old. IQ tests are for estimating the academic potential of children. There is a lot of uncertainty in the prediction, so someone who has a high IQ does not always turn out to be brilliant academically, nor successful in other ways. There are no professions which are associated with true extremes of IQ, and excelling in a difficult field is a way more substantial achievement than doing petty puzzles.
To be still trying to rely on your IQ tends to give the impression you never developed any more substantial skills that would be relevant to a discussion of anything substantial.
means that I continued to develop mentally for much longer than more average people would and it also tends to mean that without any onset of dementia, which would be due to more physical causes, any mental decline I will suffer (and it happens to us all, sooner or later) is likely to start for me at a much later age than normal. Consequently, the gap between us is increasing atm at an accelerating rate and that's why you are struggling so much, except that you may not know that you are.
Let's find a way to objectively test you. Perhaps you can do a dementia test and then boast about having aced it.
Jul 11, 2024
0
#10424
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
...
Let's find a way to objectively test you. Perhaps you can do a dementia test and then boast about having aced it.
Like that one. Hilarious that they only send you for those things if they seriously think you're going gaga. You have to be already gaga to boast about it.
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
proof where tygxc? you still havent addressed how you are considering a high probability of a draw to be a proof of a draw.
I'm not sure if Tygxc want's to say his calculations are an actual proof, that it's of course not.. What is more concerning is that his probability calculations are also way off.
Jul 11, 2024
0
#10426
Not only does he want to say that, he does say that, frequently, ignoring crucial feedback.
@13668
112 draws out of 112 games in the strongest chess on the planet, like 5000 elo equivalent,
is strong evidence that all 112 games are perfect games with no errors, and thus also that chess is a draw, consistent with 1 tempo = 1/3 pawn is not enough to win and each further move diminishing the +1 tempo advantage.
Suppose game 113 were decisive, i.e. contains an error. Then the error rate becomes 1/113.
Thus the probability of 2 errors becomes (1/113)² = 0.007%,
i.e. the probability of all 112 games being perfect games with 0 error is 99.993%.
The probability of chess not being a draw and all 112 games containing 1 error becomes
(1/113)^112 = 10^(-130), or, as Schaeffer said 'vanishingly small'.
Kotshmot wrote:
tygxc wrote:
If you want to talk probability, then assume game 113 is decisive, and a clean win, no clerical error, or hospitalised player. That would leave a probability of 1/113 for a single error, or a probability of (1/113)² = 8*10^-5 of a double error, or a probability of 99.92% for the 112 draws to be perfect games with optimal play from both sides.
I don't buy these probability calculations at all. Once again you assume all errors are similar in likelihood. In reality, errors are not similar at all and they're not independant events either, meaning first error occurring could lead to the second error being more likely than the first one.
After an error there can be a 100 winning lines or there can be 1. In the second case another error is far more likely to follow. It would also make sense logically, that in the starting position there are more drawing lines, than there would be winning lines after a subtle error by a strong engine. This makes it way more difficult to estimate how many errors are there actually in these games or whats the likelyhood of these games being perfect.
I've referred to some of the logical problems in your calculations before.
Jul 11, 2024
0
#10429
optimissed i just asked you to respond to the material instead of childish insults and red herrings, and you immediately respond with childish insults and red herrings lmfao.
Do you not know how to read or something?
You know what, let's keep the material simple. Which line of zermelo's proof is incorrect?
Which people, that you claim exist, claim that there is only one infinity?
Jul 11, 2024
0
#10430
"The probability of chess not being a draw and all 112 games containing 1 error becomes
(1/113)^112 = 10^(-130), or, as Schaeffer said 'vanishingly small'."
so by definition it isnt a proof. thats non zero.
Jul 11, 2024
0
#10431
"Suppose game 113 were decisive, i.e. contains an error. Then the error rate becomes 1/113."
that assumes from the start that none of the games have errors, thats a false assumption as it is without proof.
i totally respect opti's iq. his eq (emotional) could be even higher. i gotta 98 wait maybe it was 88 when was 4. my mom said i messed up shapes & sizes really bad. i tooka mensa test when i was 15. after like the first 2 questions ?...i just left.
btw do u ppl stay up all nite or s/t writing stuff in here ?...i mean find s/t to do already.
This is very interesting!
yeah ??...and ur cheeks probly look like a chipmunks.
your criticism shows you don't understand science.
...or math.
so the probability of not drawing a white ball 50 times in succession is .99^50. 1-(.99^50) is 39.4993...%
try 1/100 + 1/99 + ... >> ...+ 1/52 + 1/51. ~69%. and s/t else. it reaches 100% at abt 37 left (63 pulls). or 1/ln e. eulers #.
math hasta come to u. u cant go gettit. ppl like einstein & squawking tried to bend it to how they wanted it. doesnt work. and if u cant figure out s/t as simple as black ball-white ball then u dont have it. iows dont be a meggy.
Jul 11, 2024
0
#10436
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
"The probability of chess not being a draw and all 112 games containing 1 error becomes
(1/113)^112 = 10^(-130), or, as Schaeffer said 'vanishingly small'."
so by definition it isnt a proof. thats non zero.
and non sequitur.
👍
@13673
"I don't buy these" ++ I don't sell, I tell.
"you assume all errors are similar in likelihood" ++ If there are none, then they are similar. If there are few, then they are similar or near to similar.
"they're not independant events either" ++ Yes, errors could be coupled in part. The most plausible error distribution is 112-0-0-0, but something like 110-0-2-0 may be possible.,
"In the second case another error is far more likely to follow."
++ But if no second error follows, a decisive game results.
"in the starting position there are more drawing lines, than there would be winning lines"
Drawing white moves: 19, losing white moves: 1.
Drawing black moves: probably 2-3 looking at the 112 ICCF WC Finals draws.
"This makes it way more difficult to estimate how many errors are there actually in these games or whats the likelyhood of these games being perfect."
++ There are 2 possibilities: either chess is a draw, or it is not.
If chess is no draw, then 112 draws would mean all 112 games must contain an odd number of errors, e.g. error distribution 0-112-0-0. That is not plausible: all 17 finalist would have to collude to make exactly 1 error. An error distribution of e.g. 0-60-0-52-0 makes no sense either: 60 games with 1 error and 0 games with 0 or 2 errors.
So chess must be a draw.
That is possible with error distribution 112-0-0-0. It could also be with e.g. 110-0-2-0. Because of redundancy of the 112 games, the 2 games with 2 errors can be discarded.
An error distribution of e.g. 60-0-52-0 is not plausible either: 30 games with 0 error, 52 with 2 errors and 0 with 1 error, i.e. all errors paired. That could be a result of autoplay, but here 17 different entities from 11 countries compete with different software, different tuning, different hardware (worse for the 4 Russians), different time per move (average 5 days / move, but one may use 2 days on a move and the other 10 days on the reply.
Jul 11, 2024
0
#10439
"If chess is no draw, then 112 draws would mean all 112 games must contain an odd number of errors, e.g. error distribution 0-112-0-0. That is not plausible:"
but it literally is, by definition, plausible. you are doing the logical equivalent of claiming "i dont like it, therefore it's wrong"/appeal to the stone fallacy.
"all 17 finalist would have to collude to make exactly 1 error."
you are assuming that there isnt an error that all of them missed because they didnt have the depth to analyze it.
you start from the assumption that the game is a draw to justify a claim that the game is a draw. thats not how logic works.
Id like to visit again the ludicrous claim tygxc makes - that if chess were a forced win, then "all 17 finalist would have to collude to make exactly 1 error." for them to collude, they would have to all know the winning line.
tygxc is proposing that chess is a draw because if it was a forced win we would already know the winning line.
let how stupid of a claim that is sink in.
tygxc wrote:
@13673
"I don't buy these" ++ I don't sell, I tell.
"you assume all errors are similar in likelihood" ++ If there are none, then they are similar. If there are few, then they are similar or near to similar.
"they're not independant events either" ++ Yes, errors could be coupled in part. The most plausible error distribution is 112-0-0-0, but something like 110-0-2-0 may be possible.,
"In the second case another error is far more likely to follow."
++ But if no second error follows, a decisive game results.
"in the starting position there are more drawing lines, than there would be winning lines"
Drawing white moves: 19, losing white moves: 1.
Drawing black moves: probably 2-3 looking at the 112 ICCF WC Finals draws.
"This makes it way more difficult to estimate how many errors are there actually in these games or whats the likelyhood of these games being perfect."
++ There are 2 possibilities: either chess is a draw, or it is not.
If chess is no draw, then 112 draws would mean all 112 games must contain an odd number of errors, e.g. error distribution 0-112-0-0. That is not plausible: all 17 finalist would have to collude to make exactly 1 error. An error distribution of e.g. 0-60-0-52-0 makes no sense either: 60 games with 1 error and 0 games with 0 or 2 errors.
So chess must be a draw.
That is possible with error distribution 112-0-0-0. It could also be with e.g. 110-0-2-0. Because of redundancy of the 112 games, the 2 games with 2 errors can be discarded.
An error distribution of e.g. 60-0-52-0 is not plausible either: 30 games with 0 error, 52 with 2 errors and 0 with 1 error, i.e. all errors paired. That could be a result of autoplay, but here 17 different entities from 11 countries compete with different software, different tuning, different hardware (worse for the 4 Russians), different time per move (average 5 days / move, but one may use 2 days on a move and the other 10 days on the reply.
"An error distribution of e.g. 60-0-52-0 is not plausible either: 30 games with 0 error, 52 with 2 errors and 0 with 1 error, i.e. all errors paired."
For the reasons I gave earlier, any distribution is plausible. It could be extremely likely that errors come in pairs, simply because when an error is made in a high level game, the window to capitalize is small.
It's fundamentally wrong trying to calculate odds for a series of events (errors) that are all different and dependant of each other in a way we cannot predict accurately. That's why I hope not to see that 99. something % atleast used as an argument let alone proof.
Elroch is getting older too and the perceptive and logical errors from him are also coming in thick and fast.
Although I'm quite a bit older than either of you, my 169 IQ means that I continued to develop mentally for much longer than more average people would and it also tends to mean that without any onset of dementia, which would be due to more physical causes, any mental decline I will suffer (and it happens to us all, sooner or later) is likely to start for me at a much later age than normal. Consequently, the gap between us is increasing atm at an accelerating rate and that's why you are struggling so much, except that you may not know that you are.
[and]
Anyway I have to go. Stay well and happy. Eat more turnips or something.
The rationalizations never end with you. You're the one in decline. Just. Like. Ponz. But unlike him, you have no previous accomplishments to speak of, so it's hard to even feel sorry for your decline, because your starting point was already objectionable and annoying, and now we've just added forgetfulness and inability to focus on what you are reading and discern anything about it.
As for the latter post...
Adding more "fake sadness", I see. Your narrative drives your entire life, and there's nothing coherent left.