Optimissed wrote:
...
I didn't try hard to understand it because I assumed there was nothing to understand. ...
I think that's the main cause of your problem.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
May 28, 2024
0
#10483
Optimissed wrote:
mrhjornevik wrote:
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
For practical purposes we can regard the permutations in chess as infinite. That's a very different thing from saying that the number of permutations is actually infinite. It isn't something I would expect the gang to understand.
That's because it's nonsense. Finite numbers are all TINY compared to aleph-null (the first infinite number). An infinite number is not just "very big", it has a different character to every finite number.
May 28, 2024
0
#10484
Finite numbers are all TINY compared to almost every other finite number (but not as tiny).
May 28, 2024
0
#10485
tygxc wrote:
@10678
See Figure 2 from 1 s/move to 1 min/move reduces errors from 11.8% to 2.1%.
that doesnt mean anything, thats two points on a graph, and you dont even have the right y values.
May 28, 2024
0
#10486
tygxc wrote:
@10703
"typical 40 legal choices"
++ That is an illusion. There are average at most 3 legal choices that do not transpose.
Proof is by the pigeonhole principle.
There are no more legal chess positions than there are legal chess positions.
I go with the number 10^38 positions without underpromotions to pieces not previously taken, but you can take the whole number of 10^44 legal positions if you want.
10^38 = 3^76 = 3^(2*38)
That means 3 non transposing choices per move reach all legal positions in 38 moves.
Coincidently an average ICCF World Championship Finals game lasts 38 moves.
So 3 is the number and 40 is not.
Suppose transposition reduces the effective branching factor to merely 2 (this is unrealistic without rejecting moves based on zero ply evaluation, but let's just pretend), then your 10^17 positions will be reached in a mere 56 moves. Top engine games using a tablebase typically take longer than this to resolve.
In truth, it's much worse than this, because the effective branching factor is much higher once you DON'T ignore any of the opponent's moves on the basis of a zero ply evaluation.
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
...
I didn't try hard to understand it because I assumed there was nothing to understand. ...
I think that's the main cause of your problem.
Possibly. I know that I'm right, however.
Optimissed wrote:
Translation services provided by: DiogenesDue
I didn't try hard to understand it because I assumed there was nothing to understand.
"I didn't try to understand it because I rarely understand the arguments of the people I oppose, so might as well save time."
I assumed that because I don't have a high opinion of your efforts here and I assume you're trying deliberately to confuse people.
"Your argument confused me."
That's me being charitable to you.
"That's what happens in most arguments, I get confused when it goes in depth, and start making up stuff to compensate."
Generally, most of your comments seem pointless and designed to con people into thinking they may have a point to them. I don't think there's any other reasonable or rational way to interpret your efforts.
"I have to interpret things this way to maintain my fragile ego."
I think that certain other people tolerate you and see you as a positive because they know that in return for that, you will support their rather miserable efforts to convince people that they themselves know what they're talking about.
"I hate everyone that knows more than I do."
All I know is that if you were knowledgeable and intelligent then it would show.
"If you are a knowledgeable and intelligent poster, I will try to tear you down and play king of the hill by trying to elevate myself above you. Tearing down is easier for me than displaying knowledge/expertise, so, expect more of that end of things."
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
mrhjornevik wrote:
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
For practical purposes we can regard the permutations in chess as infinite. That's a very different thing from saying that the number of permutations is actually infinite. It isn't something I would expect the gang to understand.
That's because it's nonsense. Finite numbers are all TINY compared to aleph-null (the first infinite number). An infinite number is not just "very big", it has a different character to every finite number.
It's a shame, really, that you don't have the ability to understand the English language, isn't it.
There are no infinite numbers, you infinite dork. Infinity is an abstract concept and in my opinion you are quoting that crazy person again, whom you admire but who just made it all up. Cantor. It equates to you arguing from authority, so how about having another try.
Hold your breath when you're reading this. "For practical purposes we can regard the permutations in chess as infinite. That's a very different thing from saying that the number of permutations is actually infinite." Do you actually enjoy making a fool of yourself?
Do you realise that I think you're a fool in exactly the same way that you think tygxc is a fool and tell him that too? You have a near-zero ability to understand concepts that seem foreign to you. Hence your attempt to teach me relativistic philosophy, because you couldn't make your brain understand what I was talking about, if you recall from a year or two ago. What you might say you think of my ability is of no concern to me. Hiding behind people the way you do and getting them to troll people you know what you are is contemptible.
minhduong0130 wrote::
Finite numbers are all TINY compared to almost every other finite number (but not as tiny).
YOU made 2 mistakes. First, infinite is spelled wrong and there are only 1 infinity
He believes in Cantor's ideas. This is someone who pretends he only believes things that can be proven so something seems a bit inequitable there. Cantor pretended that infinity is something it isn't because, like some other ambitious people, he believed he could con mathematicians into believing him. At the time he was rejected but now, some people are saying he was brilliant. He was actually insane, by the way. Ended his life in an asylum or something.
May 28, 2024
0
#10492
minhduong0130 wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Finite numbers are all TINY compared to almost every other finite number (but not as tiny).
YOU made 2 mistakes. First, infinite is spelled wrong and there are only 1 infinity
1. I didn't spell "infinite".
2. There are infinitely more infinities than natural numbers if you want there to be.
3. "There are only 1" is a contradiction in terms.
May 28, 2024
0
#10493
Optimissed wrote:
minhduong0130 wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Finite numbers are all TINY compared to almost every other finite number (but not as tiny).
YOU made 2 mistakes. First, infinite is spelled wrong and there are only 1 infinity
He believes in Cantor's ideas. This is someone who pretends he only believes things that can be proven so something seems a bit inequitable there. Cantor pretended that infinity is something it isn't because, like some other ambitious people, he believed he could con mathematicians into believing him. At the time he was rejected but now, some people are saying he was brilliant. He was actually insane, by the way. Ended his life in an asylum or something.
This is an expression of your ignorance. The style and the thinking it reveals is inferior to the way mathematicians think and reason, and how they are motivated.
You won't find a competent mathematician who would agree with you, and you can be sure many of them are a LOT more intelligent than you.
Yes, we can say that it can never be solved but if you play Coc mod unlimited everything then you are going to enjoy more. You can download it here : https://clashofclansproapk.com/
Optimissed wrote:
Do you realise that I think you're a fool in exactly the same way that you think tygxc is a fool and tell him that too? You have a near-zero ability to understand concepts that seem foreign to you. Hence your attempt to teach me relativistic philosophy, because you couldn't make your brain understand what I was talking about, if you recall from a year or two ago. What you might say you think of my ability is of no concern to me. Hiding behind people the way you do and getting them to troll people you know what you are is contemptible.
You think anyone that doesn't agree with you is a fool...it's your primary character trait, in fact. Examples litter these 500+ pages. Contemptible, yes, but you are also pitiable...you've been like this for 50+ years and nobody has shown you the way out.
How exactly would anyone be able to say that I hide behind anyone? Demonstrably the opposite. So, in your delusional world, I hide behind other posters, but somehow *am* also the other posters in secret, all while being the servant of another, who hides behind me...perhaps you can keep extending this into a circle, like Ouroboros eating its own tail.
May 28, 2024
0
#10496
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
mrhjornevik wrote:
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
For practical purposes we can regard the permutations in chess as infinite. That's a very different thing from saying that the number of permutations is actually infinite. It isn't something I would expect the gang to understand.
That's because it's nonsense. Finite numbers are all TINY compared to aleph-null (the first infinite number). An infinite number is not just "very big", it has a different character to every finite number.
It's a shame, really, that you don't have the ability to understand the English language, isn't it.
There are no infinite numbers, you infinite dork. Infinity is an abstract concept
Finite numbers are abstract concepts too. I understand that while "3" is an abstract concept that you might be able to cope with, aleph-null is not, but that is a fact about you, not about numbers.
and in my opinion you are quoting that crazy person again, whom you admire but who just made it all up. Cantor. It equates to you arguing from authority, so how about having another try.
Hold your breath when you're reading this. "For practical purposes we can regard the permutations in chess as infinite. That's a very different thing from saying that the number of permutations is actually infinite." Do you actually enjoy making a fool of yourself?
This is only valid if you think it is "practical" to be able to infer every single possible falsehood by simple deduction. THAT is the price of assuming a falsehood, which is why it is a really bad idea.
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
minhduong0130 wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Finite numbers are all TINY compared to almost every other finite number (but not as tiny).
YOU made 2 mistakes. First, infinite is spelled wrong and there are only 1 infinity
He believes in Cantor's ideas. This is someone who pretends he only believes things that can be proven so something seems a bit inequitable there. Cantor pretended that infinity is something it isn't because, like some other ambitious people, he believed he could con mathematicians into believing him. At the time he was rejected but now, some people are saying he was brilliant. He was actually insane, by the way. Ended his life in an asylum or something.
This is an expression of your ignorance. The style and the thinking it reveals is inferior to the way mathematicians think and reason, and how they are motivated.
You won't find a competent mathematician who would agree with you, and you can be sure many of them are a LOT more intelligent than you.
Why are you always so insistent that you're always right and that it's fine for you to be aggressively rude to others and when they quite naturally challenge you, you call them "ignorant"?
Tell you what. I'm a lot more intelligent than you, but you prefer to pretend I'm not since it gives you an excuse to talk down to me. IQ wise I'm at least 20 points better than you, maybe 30 or 35. Right, if you're so clever, explain to me exactly why my thinking is inferior to mathematicians and more importantly, explain how mathematicians think and how they are motivated. I'll read it and see what I think of your explanation. If you can't give an explanation, I'll assume you're just being pompous as usual.
Bear in mind that you have an MMath in statistics. I certainly don't regard you as anywhere close to being my intellectual equal. I see you as quite a dull person but prove you are my equal. Tell me how mathaticians think and how they're motivated. 
May 28, 2024
0
#10498
minhduong0130 wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Finite numbers are all TINY compared to almost every other finite number (but not as tiny).
YOU made 2 mistakes. First, infinite is spelled wrong and there are only 1 infinity
This is very wrong, and I can give you a real life practical example.
The number off Odd numbers are infinite, the number of Even numbers are infinite, and they are the same sice of infinite. However the number of all the odd numbers + all the Even numbers are also the same infinite. This is called countable infinity. Ie start by making two lists. 1 (Odd) then two (Even) and you Will see that these two lists both are equaly Long.
However, make two new lists. On one list all the natural numbers (1, 2, 3) etc. On the other writa all the rational numbers. (1, 1.1, 1.01, 1.001) ypu Will now have to cont til infinity before you reach 2. So one list Will be longer than the other.
The practical eexcample comes from computer science. A computer can always (if given enought time) solve any problem that takes a countable infinity amount of time to solve. However, a computer can never (Even with infinite amount of time) solve a problem that takes a uncountable infinity amount of time to solve.
May 28, 2024
0
#10500
mrhjornevik wrote:
However, make two new lists. On one list all the natural numbers (1, 2, 3) etc. On the other writa all the rational numbers. (1, 1.1, 1.01, 1.001) ypu Will now have to cont til infinity before you reach 2. So one list Will be longer than the other.
The practical eexcample comes from computer science.
You are incorrect: the RATIONAL numbers are countable. It's the IRRATIONAL numbers that are uncountable (i.e. a larger infinity). Did you mean to say "irrational" rather than rational?
Just because one way to count the rationals does not work, that does not mean another does not.
Here is a hint how to count the rationals and show they have the same cardinality as the natural numbers. The basic trick is to order them by the sum of the absolute values of their numerator and denominator. There are only a finite number of rational numbers with a given such sum.
Note that it only does all the positive rationals, but you will be easily able to extend it to rationals with both signs (by alternating between the two sets)!
even if chess is solved, no one would have to worry cuz there is no way someone even Magnus could memorize that much moves
No way even to retrieve them from the program that solved it.