@14093
"You didn't prove a single one of the whole sample." ++ I did prove it for all 3 samples Tromp displayed: multiple underpromotions top rooks/bishops for both sides.
"rely on SF play which is not optimal" ++ No, rely on 17 ICCF WC Finalists with engines at 5 days/move, which now has reached optimal play.
@14100
"What tygxc is saying" ++ Is something else.
Tromp's 10^44 positions are positions as set up on a chess board by monkeys.
A position resulting from master play has an inner logic and structure.
It is possible just by glancing at a position if it is set up by monkeys or results from a master game.
"I am arguing that the game stays the same if underpromotions to pieces not previously captured were illegal"
++ This is easy. If Elroch disagrees, then he can show 1 master game that contradicts me.
@14102
"@tygxc's suggested algorithm" ++ I do not suggest an algorithm, I say the 17 ICCF WC Finalists and their engines are weakly solving Chess.
Limiting underpromotions to pieces previously captured is only to estimate the number of positions relevant to weakly solving Chess, i.e. 10^17.
"His algorithm" ++ No such algorithm: ICCF WC Finals is the algorithm.
"this situation is very rare" ++ Yes, so can be ignored for the purpose of estimating the number of chess positions relevant to weakly solving Chess, i.e. 10^17.
"you only need one" ++ Schaeffer needed 10^14 for Checkers.
Chess needs 1.8*10^17 = Sqrt (3*10^37 * 10.9456 / 10,000)
wow, just going to continue to have that made up 10k reduction, huh?
also, taking the square root means your calculating the size of the game tree, not the calculations needed to find the game tree. your number is inherently flawed.
the game tree of checkers was 10^7. it took 10^14 calculations to find that game tree.
as schaeffer points out, chess is much more inefficient than checkers with calculations. So a 10^17 tree would take more tha 10^34 calculations to find.
Optimissed will always pretend that his trolling is about whoever else.
Whether its a particular individual - or groups of people.
On occasion some persons actually fall for that crass illogic of Optimissed's.
But most don't.
Usually - whatever Optimissed is claiming or asserting - its the reverse that is the reality. Constantly. Year in year out.
you know, optimissed recently has been making actual falsifiable arguments against elroch. idk what made him change but his some of his statemetns actually are startng to have some substance.
@14104
"daily chess is a joke to you"
++ chess.com daily without engines, not competitive, played by weak players is a joke
"but 5 days/move is proven perfect chess"
++ ICCF World Championship Finals very competitive to become the World Champion played by ICCF (grand)masters who qualified through Preliminaries, Semifinals, Candidates and with twin engines each 90 million positions/s produces 113 draws out of 113 games and is thus 99.992% sure to be perfect chess with optimal play by both sides.
since when is high probability a mathematical proof?
> 99.992%
I'm not a fan of this number
@14131
"discount underpromotions or promotions to not previously captured pieces"
++ But it is appropriate not to count positions with underpromotions to pieces not previously captured, i.e. an underpromotion and at the same time a promotion to a piece not previously captured for the purpose of estimating the number of positions relevant to weakly solving Chess.
"a saving of moves" ++ No, it is eliminating positions that are irrelevant from the count of positions relevant to weakly solving Chess.
"there may not be much progress towards solving chess" ++ There is much progress: 113 draws out of 113 games in the ICCF World Championship Finals.
"type of algorithm" ++ The ICCF WC Finalists and their engines are the algorithm.
"design a set of algorithms" ++ No need to design, the ICCF WC finalists are doing it.
"a much higher degree of accuracy than previously"
++ In previous years ICCF WC Finals there were decisive games, every year fewer.
In the Preliminaries, Semifinals, Candidates, there are still decisive games: that is how they qualify for the Finals. The ICCF WC Finals have now reached perfection: 113 draws out of 113 games. The humans, the software, the data bases, and the hardware all got better.
"start with complex middle game positions and analyse outwards" ++ No, start with the opening and trace the opening to a technical endgame, like Sveshnikov said.
"perhaps, a hobbyist manages it" ++ The 17 ICCF WC Finalists are hobbyists.
@14135
"I'm not a fan of this number"
++ 113 games out of 113 in the ICCF WC Finals ended in draws.
Suppose game 114 ends in a clear win: no clerical error or ill player or crashed computer...
Then the error rate is 1/114.
Thus the probability of one of the 113 games having 2 errors is (1/114)² = 0.0077%
Thus the 113 draws are 99.992% sure to be perfect games with optimal play from both sides.
"tygxc just claimed (elsewhere) that a set of games was perfect but also that the games may have had errors. simultaneously. and then wonders why we are pointing out a contradiction."
@14140
"tygxc just claimed (elsewhere) that a set of games was perfect" ++ 99.992% sure
"the games may have had errors" ++ 0.0077% chance.
@14142
"adding a human to the engines would correct the imperfections of the engine."
++ The human and the engines complement each other. The engine does the calculating.
The human selects the opening, takes care of long term strategy and planning beyond the engine's horizon and agrees on a draw when there is no hope for either side to win.
Sveshnikov asked first for good assistants and only then for modern computers.
@14140
"tygxc just claimed (elsewhere) that a set of games was perfect" ++ 99.992% sure
"the games may have had errors" ++ 0.0077% chance.
mathematical fact is one or the other.... pretty basic logic.
also, im pretty sure you dont know this, but making up probabilities doesnt mean that those probabilities are true.
Chess can be solved, it doesn't matter what it is or how you do it is a finite chess board with finite pieces. Applying the chess rules like the 50-move rule or the 75-move rule. It doesn't matter what you play you are eventually going to a dead end.
Here, if we play the best move (which every move is), it doesn't matter what we play, the longest continuation will be the game ending in 75 moves, which makes the position solvable.
We can add more pieces to the game:
This position is a draw, it is solvable since regardless of what the game will be (we do not include a blunder move or line) you can play this game for about 151 moves. So this game is solvable regardless of how both sides play, this is just like a puzzle, regardless of what the opponent plays if you play the best line the outcome would just be the same. (In this case, it will be a draw).
So eventually if both sides play the game with 100% accuracy, with precision the rules will just catch up to them, and soon the 75-move rule will end the game (the 50-move rule will be applied on chess.com).
Chess is solvable, however, we are yet to see the true end of this board game, but mathematically chess is solvable.
'complementing each other' doesn't prove anything.
tygxc claiming it does isn't proof.
And I added to my previous post so I'll repost it below.
And delete the previous version.
That might prompt Optimissed to say some schizophrenic thing.
Schizo but insipid. Dull. Predictable. By the O-person.
A post from MEGA - I can't find the original right now.
"tygxc just claimed (elsewhere) that a set of games was perfect but also that the games may have had errors. simultaneously. and then wonders why we are pointing out a contradiction."--------------------------
tygxc has also 'beaten himself' by claiming that 'adding a human' to the engines would correct the imperfections of the chess engines.
Which means he's conceding the imperfections of the engines but trying to add false logic by claiming the imperfect human would correct that.
Now he's trying to falsely assign a 'probability of error'.
--------------------------
I'm adding that GM Evgeny Sveshnikov who claimed he feels 'that power' to solve chess in five years with the right equipment -
was anti-vaxx and anti-mask too.
Guess what he died of? That's right. Covid.
Prediction: we'll get the usual insipid non-connecting comments from Optimissed ... very easily skipped over and O's comments are almost always false and dishonest anyway.
------------------------------------
Is worship of Sveshnikov what is motivating tygxc?
Perhaps tygxc's origninal motivation was something else and then it morphed into its current form - whatever that is.
And perhaps that's one of the dynamics of the 'discussion'.
Curiosity as to what could possibly be driving tygxc.
Nothing better for him to do maybe. 7 days a week - 16 hours a day.
He's still in better shape than O is though. But everybody is.
its interesting because if tygxc had read the article (and had the ability to analyze mathematically) he would have realized that the method Sveshnikov described was mathematically NOT a solution to chess.
its interesting because if tygxc had read the article (and had the ability to analyze mathematically) he would have realized that the method Sveshnikov described was mathematically NOT a solution to chess.
Hi MEGA.
The internet article by Sveshnikov doesn't require google translate to see it in English.
You just right click and hit the translate option and Voila! The russian morphs into English just like that!
Hi