@10955
"computers can't do it"
++ Present computers cannot strongly solve Chess to a 32-men table base of 10^44 positions,
but present computers can weakly solve Chess, like Schaeffer weakly solved Checkers.
The 17 ICCF World Championship finalists with their computers are now about there:
106 draws out of 106 games, and whatever white tries, not one but several lines draw for black.
@10879
"a correct interpretation"
Demanding calculated trees for
Is not a correct, but a stupid interpretation. We know those are losses for white. That is elementary game knowledge. It does not even take an ICCF (grand)master to see that.
Likewise it is unnecessary to analyse 1 a4. If black can draw against the best moves
1 e4, 1 d4, 1 Nf3, 1 c4, then a fortiori black can draw against the lesser moves like 1 a4.
Likewise by pure logic we can dismiss outright 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Ng1.
It still draws for white, as white can afford to lose 2 tempi,
but it does not oppose to black achieving the game-theoretic value.
tygxc - its too late. You've already conceded. Yes you want to keep 'qualifying that' but the irony there is you act like you don't realize you 'did right' by conceding. Lol!
--------------------------------------
Regarding BC - the fact that Dio keeps exposing O's constant falsehoods over and over again ... is not 'trash-talking'.
Dio's posts constantly exposing and rebuking @Optimissed and refuting O's constant illogic and delusions ... are Righteous.
This goes completely over BC's head. Week in week out.
He doesn't get it and isn't going to probably.
He's now 'too invested' and will keep doubling down on his error and try to keep pushing crassly false equivalencies between Dio and the O-person.
---------------------------------------------
Yes BC is probably in the 19 to 23 age range. A very young adult.
And hasn't yet discovered that experience counts.
He probably doesn't grasp that six years from now he'll probably know more about life than he does now. That his world-view will probably improve.
He probably gets it why 13 year olds aren't allowed to drive.
But probably completely doesn't get it why people under 35 aren't allowed to be president of the US. A lot of countries require 35. Some require 40.
Point: BC wouldn't understand this.
Sometimes - this blindness peaks with 25 year old males.
-------------------------------------
Regarding introspection ...
Introspection is an imperfect activity.
One would go insane if one tried to introspect every single thought and action.
Humanity evolved and survived by having subconscious minds with various positions being insidious.
But that doesn't mean one shouldn't introspect from time to time.
Even though it'll often be inaccurate and will always be incomplete.
@10960
"You've already conceded"
++ You still do not understand that there are 3 kinds of solving: strongly, weakly, ultra-weakly.
One is not more real than the other. One is not needed for the other.
Hex has been ultra-weakly solved, neither weakly, nor strongly.
Schaeffer weakly solved Checkers, not strongly.
Strongly solving Chess to a 32-men table base with all 10^44 legal positions is beyond present technology, but weakly solving Chess is viable and the ICCF WC Finals is now about there: 106 perfect games without errors, all draws.
@10955
"computers can't do it"
++ Present computers cannot strongly solve Chess to a 32-men table base of 10^44 positions,
but present computers can weakly solve Chess, like Schaeffer weakly solved Checkers.
The 17 ICCF World Championship finalists with their computers are now about there:
106 draws out of 106 games, and whatever white tries, not one but several lines draw for black.
obligatory correction: tygxc's calculations are incorrect by a factor of over a million, today's computers cannot weakly solve chess.
@10962
"today's computers cannot weakly solve chess"
++ They can and they do.
ICCF World Championship Finals: 106 draws out of 106 games after 500 years of CPU time.
@tygsc, if you redefine weakly solving chess as "playing a game of chess against another computer", today's computers can weakly solve chess. But if you use the definition understood by all those who have published peer-reviewed papers on the topic, today's computers definitely cannot weakly solve chess.
So you can keep using the language wrongly and creating noise, while the rest of us will continue to refer to those who are competent.
To be perfectly blunt, is your level of understanding of interpreting empirical data so abysmal that you don't understand that 106 draws do not preclude the possibility that, say, 1 in 200 games between the two players would be decisive?
This is not a rhetorical question.
If you can get to where you understand that, you can move on the equally simple fact about interpreting empirical data that if you have a class of 1,000,000 positions where one player surprisingly gives up a piece and the other player has a forced win (pretend we know that), that does not preclude the possibility that in 1 in 1,000,000,000 such positions the other player wins.
The bottom line is that no such imprecise inference is permitted in any weak solution. Any use of such incompetent methods would not allow a paper on the subject to get past peer review.
Can you remind us, how many peer-reviewed papers have you published on the subject? Are you aware of any peer-reviewed papers that use the same incorrect methods as yourself?
..... those who are competent."
That's me. I pointed out years ago that weakly solving a la definition is a kind of variation on strongly solving. I had noticed that the so-called competent people HERE seemed to have been talking for a year or more about a situation where "best moves" pop out of a hat. I pointed out that you have to do the equivalent of a limited strong solution on each move, to find the best rejoinders. The belief seemed to be that you needed to analyse from one side only.
This was a very clear signal that the definitions are not fit for purpose, since they confused everyone else discussing this, so far as I could see. It means that it certainly isn't tygxc's fault ... or at least, not his fault alone. I haven't seen all that much competence here from anyone overall. Elroch, if you could have avoided getting into pointless arguments with tygxc, that would have left only RATMAR to provide that diversion. Between the two of them, they used hundreds of posts, discussing, completely pointlessly, rule variations that are better applied to the solution after it's found, if it's found, rather than being applied to hypothetical methods of solving. This was nothing more than a useless and annoying distraction and it amply exemplifies why there's no progress to be made and no chance of educating people like MEGA, who is genuinely interested but as out of his depth as some others are here.
Trouble is, if Elroch went away and made another thread on the subject, I would be blocked and so equally there would be about zero chance of the rest of you making any progress.
..... those who are competent."
That's me. I pointed out years ago that weakly solving a la definition is a kind of variation on strongly solving.
Regrettably disproving the previous sentence.
The definition of strongly solving is that if you are presented with ANY chess position, you can return the value with optimal play of that position. By contrast a weak solution of chess provides you with no help for evaluating almost every possible position you could be presented with.
Both are precise, very different things.
from @Optimissed just now:
"..... those who are competent."
"That's me." from 'O'.
---------------------------------------------
Translation: the opposite is the case.
O is Not competent.
There's more than one 'keeper' from O.
'science is a belief system'
'if its an opinion it can't be inaccurate'
'vaccination weakens the immune system'.
O is anything but competent.
..... those who are competent."
That's me. I pointed out years ago that weakly solving a la definition is a kind of variation on strongly solving.
Regrettably disproving the previous sentence.
The definition of strongly solving is that if you are presented with ANY chess position, you can return the value with optimal play of that position. By contrast a weak solution of chess provides you with no help for evaluating almost every possible position you could be presented with.
Both are precise, very different things.
This is an indication of your own lack of understanding, Elroch. You're a stats expert. In effect it means that you're used to dealing with dead facts. I suppose you can't help your attempts at one-upmanship.
Let me put it another way. You were wrong and any competent person can understand my post.
Of course your language was characteristically vague and ambiguous (the opposite of mine). But on what planet would being able to give the value of a tiny fraction (say 10^30 out of 10^44 positions, 1 in 100,000,000,000,000 positions) be a "kind of variation" on being able to give the value of ANY position (the definition of a strong solution)?
Serious question (which you will dodge).
Ty does understand it better than you, in fact. The weakness is the bad maths and lack of logic in working out how a position should actually be analysed. You and I are probably closer on that. Unfortunately, you are he are extremely similar in character, which explains your interminable arguing to no effect, because you are both equally blinded by the poor definitions.
Let me put it another way. You were wrong and any competent person can understand my post.
The words make sense. The question is whether your attempts are any more relevant than those of RATMAR or ty. All three of you are myopic and tunnel-visioned, each from your own perspectives. With you in charge, chess would stand no more chance of being solved than with either of the other two, except that ty's eminently more practical approach is the closest we can currently get to some kind of working solution.
@10955
"computers can't do it"
++ Present computers cannot strongly solve Chess to a 32-men table base of 10^44 positions,
but present computers can weakly solve Chess, like Schaeffer weakly solved Checkers.
The 17 ICCF World Championship finalists with their computers are now about there:
106 draws out of 106 games, and whatever white tries, not one but several lines draw for black.
obligatory correction: tygxc's calculations are incorrect by a factor of over a million, today's computers cannot weakly solve chess.
I think tygxc is inaccurate by a factor of Far over a million.
He's off by much much more than that ...
Have you seen his argument about taking the square root?
When you take the square root of a very large number - the kinds of numbers we're talking about here ... taking the square root invalidly reduces the number to under a million trillionth of its previous value.
For example if you take the square root of a 40 digit number you'll have a number with approximately twenty digits.
To the untrained eye half the length might look like much less of a reduction than it actually is.
If you had a large forest with a million trees its like what's left is a single leaf ...
this is analagous to the kind of reduction tygxc wants to push.
Point: the larger the number that is being square rooted - the more exponentially the number is being reduced.
Square root of 9 is 3 - a third of 9.
Square root of one million is one thousand - which is only one tenth of one percent of one million.
See what you're doing when you take the square root of a 40 digit number?
tygxc likes these exotics.
Its kind of like - 'hey how about teleportation booths for world travel?'
But suggestion: don't get 'exasperated' with his square root idea because that means falling into the trap.
It would be like getting annoyed with the shape of his elbow or his shoe size.
----------------------------------------
Incidentally - GM Smirnov seems to push in his video that you should often be looking three moves deep, except of course when it obviously requires more like in an intensely tactical situation ...
In other words - operate well within yourself. One does better.
And weakly solving checkers only resulted in about a 2/3 power reduction of the full state space, rather than 1/2.
@10879
"a correct interpretation"
Demanding calculated trees for
Is not a correct, but a stupid interpretation. We know those are losses for white. That is elementary game knowledge. It does not even take an ICCF (grand)master to see that.
Likewise it is unnecessary to analyse 1 a4. If black can draw against the best moves
1 e4, 1 d4, 1 Nf3, 1 c4, then a fortiori black can draw against the lesser moves like 1 a4.
Likewise by pure logic we can dismiss outright 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Ng1.
It still draws for white, as white can afford to lose 2 tempi,
but it does not oppose to black achieving the game-theoretic value.
I have two question.
1) what is the difference of beliving something and knowing something?
2) how do you know there is is not one weird 200 ish move order that wins of black in any of the positions you disregart?
Elroch beautifully refuted O's ridiculous construct that if we had perfect setup information about a chess position (players do) then we should 'know the solution too'.
So O tried to do damage control by asserting that he sometimes introspects that he didn't understand what was being said.
Trying to pretend that he hadn't made a ridiculous construct.
Elroch had simply displayed a very long number and then said something like 'here we have perfect information as to a particularily large number. Does that mean we know its factors?'
O nearly always loses.
@10881
"The scenario is that player A underpromotes because it is the only way to win.
If he promoted to a queen, the route to the win that would work after the underpromotion happens to be blocked by a statemate."
++ So we have a position won for A. If A promotes to a queen, then a draw by stalemate results. So A avoids the draw by stalemate by underpromoting to a rook or even a bishop and still retains a won position. So B has a lost position.
Then there is no reason for B to underpromote to a rook or bishop.