https://youtu.be/F6r8cEjy9jU?t=283
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Jul 15, 2024
0
#10803
I think this one was posted before.
Try putting this one on analysis ...
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/positions-engines-get-wrong--please-contribute?page=5#comment-46317734
Jul 15, 2024
0
#10804
s
How about the engine doesn't think this is a draw?
To see that analysis -
hit this link https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/positions-engines-get-wrong--please-contribute?page=5#comment-46317734and then hit the symbol at bottom left with the three horizontal bars.
Yes its a Crazy Position - but why doesn't the engine know its a draw?
playerafar wrote:
Elroch is the real thing. A real mathematician.
MEGA and Dio and Martin and mpaetz and llama are also well-informed and educated and thoughtful and objective.
Love the hype man, starting to believe we can solve this thing
Optimissed wrote:
I don't think he's a very intelligent mathematican though. Anyone intelligent would be able to argue over things without getting personal but he's been incapable of it as long as I've known him, which is around 14 years.
Maybe it's just a bad temper
Optimissed wrote:
Alexeivich94 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
I don't think he's a very intelligent mathematican though. Anyone intelligent would be able to argue over things without getting personal but he's been incapable of it as long as I've known him, which is around 14 years.
Maybe it's just a bad temper
It used to be much worse than it is now. He used to go completely crazy in arguments, 10 years or more ago. Now he blocks everyone who argues with him from his threads. That means he can't argue with and insult anyone in his threads and he gets bored. So recently he's left his threads and ventured out, bringing his flock of trolls with him for protection.
I noticed he was insulting tygxc here, not just once but repeatedly. I can out-argue Elroch any time so I joined in. ty doesn't try to protect himself and as a result ppl think he's dim.
Just because you can out-argue him doesn't mean your right
Arguing is one thing being right is a completely different thing
Optimissed wrote:
I don't think he's a very intelligent mathematican though. Anyone intelligent would be able to argue over things without getting personal but he's been incapable of it as long as I've known him, which is around 14 years.
I am good at debating. That means I can debate on subjects I don't fully understand provided they aren't described in opaque jargon which needs an interpreter. It means I can debate better than Elroch by a long way and when he finds himself losing an argument, no matter who it's against, he has always made personal attacks. platerafar is just one of the profiles he surrounds himself with. We don't know if he's real or an alt.
Basically, if he hadn't lost the argument with me, the trolls wouldn't be talking. Thay'd be somewhere else, bothering someone else but if E loses an argument, the trolls attack. It doesn't matter and no-one who is the least bit intelligent will be taken in by it. They can only convince people dimmer than they are. Same with Elroch.
Delusional.
You are decent at pontification, but *terrible* at debating (and incapable of discerning the difference), and people are here to debunk Tygxc. Your annoying posts are entirely incidental...but way to assume that everything is always about you 
.
You definitely do debate on subjects you don't fully understand though...I mean, it's pretty much a requirement for posting in your case.
Tekuila wrote:
I could beat magnus carlsen easily, I saw his play on youtube, laughable
Sure buddy... That's compared to other 2800s tho not 2000s or below
Optimissed wrote:
That's interesting. So according to you, everyone speaking here legitimately has only one purpose, which is to "debunk" tygxc.
Thanks for confirming what I already knew, although I also know it isn't entirely true, since some people defend ty, as I normally do. Only the trolls attack him but why do they do that? Do you know why? You're kind of troll police aren't you? Your job is to attack those who try to defend ty.
Let's unravel your contortions...
- Some people defend Tygxc besides yourself? Who are they?
- You don't agree with Tygxc either...you are here for one reason and one reason only, to argue with your perceived nemesis...that is, the amalgamated blob of accounts you have deluded yourself into thinking are one person who is out to get you. It's a paranoid reaction, one that gets worse over time.
There's no reason for you to be here, there's no reason for you to be expounding upon your "14 year" unilateral feud with Elroch, and there's no reason to be talking about other threads or their relative merit, especially since you've never posted a thread of note or value in your entire tenure here.
DiogenesDue wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
I don't think he's a very intelligent mathematican though. Anyone intelligent would be able to argue over things without getting personal but he's been incapable of it as long as I've known him, which is around 14 years.
I am good at debating. That means I can debate on subjects I don't fully understand provided they aren't described in opaque jargon which needs an interpreter. It means I can debate better than Elroch by a long way and when he finds himself losing an argument, no matter who it's against, he has always made personal attacks. platerafar is just one of the profiles he surrounds himself with. We don't know if he's real or an alt.
Basically, if he hadn't lost the argument with me, the trolls wouldn't be talking. Thay'd be somewhere else, bothering someone else but if E loses an argument, the trolls attack. It doesn't matter and no-one who is the least bit intelligent will be taken in by it. They can only convince people dimmer than they are. Same with Elroch.
Delusional.
You are decent at pontification, but *terrible* at debating (and incapable of discerning the difference), and people are here to debunk Tygxc. Your annoying posts are entirely incidental...but way to assume that everything is always about you .
You definitely do debate on subjects you don't fully understand though...I mean, it's pretty much a requirement for posting in your case.
"You definitely do debate on subjects you don't fully understand though...I mean, it's pretty much a requirement for posting in your case"
One should admit that this is the case for anybody regarding any topic with a level of complexity
Optimissed wrote:
I'm going to make you laugh, Dio, although I mentioned this a few years ago. About 16 years ago, I had the reputation of being the best debater in the English Language on Facebook. Not sure how many people were on facebook back then. Several millions?
You're delusional of course. Goes without saying for most people who've been around here a few years.
You've told everyone about your supposed Facebook "reputation" (read: self-given title) at least a half dozen times over the years. You just don't remember...which is more proof of your decline...or perhaps your ego is suffering at the moment and you feel some visceral need to mention it out of the blue again because you are feeling insecure.
Alexeivich94 wrote:
"You definitely do debate on subjects you don't fully understand though...I mean, it's pretty much a requirement for posting in your case"
One should admit that this is the case for anybody regarding any topic with a level of complexity
I used 'fully understand" because Optimissed said it...but it was tongue-in-cheek. He barely understands half the the topics he posts on.
Jul 15, 2024
0
#10814
Optimissed wrote:
I am good at debating. That means I can debate on subjects I don't fully understand provided they aren't described in opaque jargon which needs an interpreter.
Those of us who have read your posts on chess.com for years realize that you will endlessly "debate" about subjects you don't understand. However, inaccurate information, pointless diversions, paranoid conspiracy theories, repeated groundless boasting about your (and your family's) unparalleled intelligence, and personal insults toward those with opposing opinions aren't commonly considered to be traits a of good debater.
Feel free to reply with whatever condescending insults you wish.
PS--You do contribute positively sometimes and many times I agree with your conclusions, but the doubling (and tripling, and octupling) down on every unreasonable supposition is wearisome.
Tekuila wrote:
I want to play people on my own level, not these 500 level people
Then beat them if your secretly 1200 then get to 1200 you aren't 1200 till you reach it
Ps:just cause u can beat someone 1000+ points above you doss not mean you do it consistently
Tekuila wrote:
if you challenge me you will see... but oh... wait.. you don't want to lose your points I get it...
I don't really care plus there's unrated :/
Tekuila wrote:
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
Tekuila wrote:
I want to play people on my own level, not these 500 level people
Then beat them if your secretly 1200 then get to 1200 you aren't 1200 till you reach it
Ps:just cause u can beat someone 1000+ points above you doss not mean you do it consistently
if I have access to play 1000+ consistently then yes, will be easy
Not really... It takes a lot more than being able to beat them 1 game
Tekuila wrote:
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
Tekuila wrote:
I want to play people on my own level, not these 500 level people
Then beat them if your secretly 1200 then get to 1200 you aren't 1200 till you reach it
Ps:just cause u can beat someone 1000+ points above you doss not mean you do it consistently
if I have access to play 1000+ consistently then yes, will be easy
Yup you play in about 500-800 range
Continue improving maybe you'll get to 2000 one day...
Jul 15, 2024
0
#10819
Optimissed wrote:
I'm going to make you laugh, Dio, although I mentioned this a few years ago. About 16 years ago, I had the reputation of being the best debater in the English Language on Facebook. Not sure how many people were on facebook back then. Several millions?
You're delusional of course. Goes without saying for most people who've been around here a few years.
That is a most amusing claim!
I presume there are no third parties to support it, no examples of the brilliant debates preserved, no record on the Internet of fame beyond a small group of acquaintances.
Am I wrong about any of those?
This entire 700+ page thread seems solely focused on brute forcing solving chess. Chess is more likely to get solved through a mathematical proof. Chess is essentially a math problem and most math problems are solved through proofs, not through brute force.
For example, here anyone could easily write a proof on why black is not capable of winning this game without needing to brute force all the possibilities. You can do this for far more complicated end games positions, such as for lucena positions.
Doing this for the starting position would be insanely ridiculously difficult and result in a proof countless thousands of pages long. I'm sure it'll take decades if not centuries to accomplish. However it seems far easier than attempting to brute force it.
Hi @GooseChess
I have some difference with Elroch in that I'm thinking that computers could be programmed to 'logic' a win in many positions.
Elroch has indicated that computers simply cannot do what I have in mind.
And maybe he's 100% right about that.
For example - if a computer reaches a position where white is on move and has his King plus eight pieces and pawns versus black's lone King ...
surely the computer can simply just declare a win without having to 'brute force' it out to checkmate?
Relevant point: the 'solved tablebases' only go up to seven pieces on the board so the computer can't use those.
Relevant point 2: the fact that the computer could 'brute force the win' in far under a second anyway - doesn't make the grade because of the daunting numbers of such positions.
Relevant point 3: this connects to what you're saying GC.
-------------------------------------------
But Elroch seems to be saying that computers simply cannot 'think' in the way suggested.
I won't make tygxc's two-year mistake of trying to exaggerate what computers can do - nor Optimissed's 50-year mistake of asserting one is right because one says so ...
(almost nobody makes the mistakes of those two)
it just seems galling to think that 'logical shortcuts' can't be done by computers in various obvious situations.
GC - Martin has pointed out that even Stockfish - an extremely powerful chess engine - assigns wrong results to some positions that humans can quickly see are wrong results.
-------------------
Maybe some of those are findable on the net and can be posted up again.