Chess will never be solved, here's why

@11048

"The solution of checkers required 1000 years of CPU time."
++ Mostly to generate the 10-men endgame table base: from 1989 to 2005.

This is incorrect. It took longer in CALENDAR time, but the forward search part of the work took 6 years using more 50 more powerful computers, which would be a larger amount of computation. Both parts are essential to a full weak solution and are similar sized computations in an efficient solution.The forward proof of Checkers lasted from 2005 to 2007 i.e. 2 years.

2004 to 2007 - see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231216842_Checkers_Is_Solved

The 17 ICCF World Championship finalists used an estimated
17 finalists * 16 CPU / finalist * 2 years = 544 CPU years
A CPU anno 2024 is more powerful than a CPU anno 2007.

A pathetic amount of computation for a game that has 10^24 times as many positions as checker! Make that a trillion years and you are scarcely scratching the surface.

Chess engines are now more efficient than Chinook was for Checkers.

"10^14 is the ~(2/3) root of 5e20, not the square root" ++ Yes, a property of checkers.

No.

A property of games without complete directionality.

"there is no valid reason why chess is easier"
++ Chess is harder: 10^17 instead of 10^14 is 1000 times harder.

Mickey Mouse numbers like 10e17 are irrelevant.

Even Schaeffer used game knowledge: 'From the human literature, a single “best” line of play was identified and used to guide the initial foray of the manager into the depths of the search tree. Although not essential for the proof, this is an important performance enhancement'

Strategies only have a single move for the proponent, and the role of engines is to find good candidates for these moves.

How long is it going to take you to understand this? 

#11055

"there is no strategy stealing for chess"

1 c3 e5 2 c4 steals 1 e4 c5.
1 Nf3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 d3 Nc6 4 d4 steals 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5.
For all tentative black wins there exists a white steal of it.

@11058

"Conect 4 has an huge amount of positions.
And we can not prove we have a wining strategy for all of then"
++ Connect Four is strongly solved for all 4,531,985,219,092 positions.
https://tromp.github.io/c4/c4.html

Those who dislike your postings are perfectly within their rights to do so. because you frequently make personal attacks on others and have always done so, which is why you are considered to be a toxic and malicious person. Also, you are frequently dishonest and known for it. Accusing others, as you do, is deflection. I think you have been muted several times but that's beside the point and isn't an issue either way, given the nature of the bots here.

It wouldn't "really matter" if you behaved well. Even if you were an "only account", the fact that you and Elroch tolerate playerafar's abusive comments is sufficient to discredit you. You and Elroch set yourselves up as pretending to be people who are very keen to see that there are no comments made which consist of "spreading false information" yet neither of you appear to be concerned when someone who obviously supports you, right or wrong, make very many abusive posts. No-one is going to believe a thing you say while the two of you allow that to continue. You may try to pretend that you have no control over "other people", in which case, why would you be trying to control the posts of those you disagree with? It's only because he supports you two that you let his crazy meanderings go. If he were arguing against you, you would both be on his case like a rocket.

You (collectively, Elroch and Dio)) are very keen to "correct" tygxc when he, in your view, "goes wrong" and you both frequently pretend I'm mistaken, confused, doddery or whatever, when I make arguments which you would find very difficult to counter: and that happens extremely frequently. You would at least rescue SOME credibility if you put an end to player's malicious ramblings. It's clear that whoever it is who inhabits player's profile makes things up and has zero concern for telling the truth.

There are four trolls here who are basically ruining the thread. One of them is NOT tygxc. He generally behaves well and is at liberty to place his opinions here even if "we" disagree with them. There may be only three trolls here if two of them are the same person. And RAMTAR wouldn't be doing it if he didn't have support. Between you. you have made this thread toxic and unpleasant for decent people and you are setting a VERY bad example to younger people.

"2004 to 2007" ++ The 10-men endgame table base was ready in 2005.
Schaeffer could not calculate in 2004 towards a table base not yet ready.
The peak was in 1992 when over 200 processors were being used simultaneously.

"a game that has 10^24 times as many positions as checker"
++ Checkers has 5*10^20 positions and Chess has 10^44 legal positions, however the vast majority has multiple underpromotions to pieces not previously captured and from both sides. Excluding underpromotions to pieces not previously captured leaves 10^38 positions. Inspecting a sample of 10,000 positions shows they do not make sense either. That leaves 10^34 positions, of which the square root i.e. 10^17 are relevant to weakly solve Chess.

#11061

"2004 to 2007" ++ The 10-men endgame table base was ready in 2005.
Schaeffer could not calculate in 2004 towards a table base not yet ready.
The peak was in 1992 when over 200 processors were being used simultaneously.

"a game that has 10^24 times as many positions as checker"
++ Checkers has 5*10^20 positions and Chess has 10^44 legal positions, however the vast majority has multiple underpromotions to pieces not previously captured and from both sides.

Er, were the first two lines meant to be a proof of the third? Can't help feeling something is missing somewhere.

I didn't say posters don't have a right to dislike me...I said that those who do tend to be classless individuals (for various reasons). Thanks for confirming the point.

Never been muted outside of crazy autobots, in contrast with your history.

Your obsession with Playerafar, Elroch, and myself is over the top. Why you have the idea that anyone can just order Playerafar to do this or that is highly insulting to him. I do get it given the "O" offensive, but surely you must realize by now that the best way to handle that is to just stop feeding into it by acting like, well...you. The question is whether you are capable of such self control.

The accusations of sockpuppetry are ludicrous as you already know deep in your heart of hearts...

Yes I know what you SAID, but it's all an invention, isn't it ... designed to try to keep your little McMafia enterprise running smoothly?

Regarding the rest, you'se crazy and it shows. L)

OK boss. Where should I stash the irons after that job, Don?

@11043

"strategy stealing is of no detectable relevance to the solution of chess"
++ Strategy stealing is a way to prove the game-theoretic value of the initial position cannot be a black win, as white can steal the strategy of any tentative black win.
Anyway it is obvious from other considerations e.g. the initiative that Chess cannot be a black win and observed results confirm that.

He may be onto something. All he has to do now is to steal a set of positions so large that one of them appears in any black strategy

that's the bit I thought was missing.

(rather than the usual version of strategy stealing - stealing the first position, which cannot work). To put it another way, white has to find a set of positions one of which can be forced on black, and one of which appears in every possible black strategy (with colours reversed). This is not entirely obviously impossible, even if it seems unlikely.

Intuitively white has to find a way to waste a move in every line without black wasting a move. Thar's the rub - it seems just as easy for black to waste a move at some time, and he only has to manage it in a single strategy to stop white's valliant attempt to steal.

Note that strategy stealing by white cannot distinguish whether white has a winning strategy or a drawing strategy.