yeah Ive even pointed this out to him before and he just ignores it. at this point i cherry pick my arguments against tygxc to only that i think he has a chance of properly comprehending.
@11961
"every position reached generates around 35 positions"
++ No, this has been disproved.
There may be 35 legal moves in a position, but average only 3 that do not transpose.
...
You decide that "position" means those attributes of the situation in a basic rules game that determine the theoretical outcome. The same attributes don't determine the theoretical outcome under competition rules. So your "positions" are irrelevant if you're talking about transpositions under competition rules. Transpose them into A, E♭ and F if you like, but the competition rules game tree nodes won't follow suit.
This is a red herring, as a weak solution of basic chess with an added n-move rule automatically provides a weak solution of chess with an additional repeated position rule (the one that greatly increases the state space). This is true whether chess is a win or a draw.
You know this already, so why ignore it again?
@tygxc's positions don't transpose mainly because of the added n-move rule. I didn't mention the triple repetition rule.
The fact is that when @tygxc asserts that his "positions" transpose, they don't. We might as well be accurate.
It also seems to me that you're also ignoring the fact that the triple move rule can be ignored in solving only with a procedure correctly designed to do that. Apart from the fact that @tygxc's procedure isn't actually designed to solve chess anyway it doesn't appear to me to conform with that. He's happy to accept a draw by SF under the triple move rule as proving a draw even when the initial occurrence was actually a win.
Yes, it's true that in principle, some hypothetical other way to solve chess might be different. @tygxc has described no such way. In fact, I don't believe a single alternative to a weak solution (apart from a strong solution) has been specified in this discussion by anyone.
if u cant figure out why a manhole cover is round ?...then ur IQs under a 100.
No one has ever solved chess.
The more tygxc tries to insist those 114 games are 'perfect' the more suspect they get.
How about the progammers didn't program them hard enough to 'play for a win'?
If both opponents play for a draw and play too safe they're going to get one.
GM's are known to play for a draw with black some of the time.
But a GM might play for a draw anytime if he thinks he needs to.
And then go to playing for a win (whether he was earlier in the game or not) if he thinks the opponent's play and new positions warrant it.
And more and more those ICCF games are starting to look like a scam.
I think it already hit 12,000 posts.
But somebody got muted the last few hours (to join Optimissed as muted too) so that knocked it down under 12000 again.
Who else got muted? LJ?
Anyway - if those ICCF engines aren't playing for a win properly - that accounts for the draws. Just that alone. There's other factors.
Imperfect games is the client. And that client is Not Guilty.
Far too little evidence.
So little - there's not even an indictment.
@11961
"every position reached generates around 35 positions"
++ No, this has been disproved.
There may be 35 legal moves in a position, but average only 3 that do not transpose.
...
You decide that "position" means those attributes of the situation in a basic rules game that determine the theoretical outcome. The same attributes don't determine the theoretical outcome under competition rules. So your "positions" are irrelevant if you're talking about transpositions under competition rules. Transpose them into A, E♭ and F if you like, but the competition rules game tree nodes won't follow suit.
This is a red herring, as a weak solution of basic chess with an added n-move rule automatically provides a weak solution of chess with an additional repeated position rule (the one that greatly increases the state space). This is true whether chess is a win or a draw.
You know this already, so why ignore it again?
@tygxc's positions don't transpose because of the added n-move rule. I didn't mention the triple repetition rule.
The fact is that when @tygxc asserts that his "positions" transpose, they don't. We might as well be accurate.
It also seems to me that you're also ignoring the fact that the triple move rule can be ignored in solving only with a procedure correctly designed to do that. Apart from the fact that @tygxc's procedure isn't actually designed to solve chess anyway it doesn't appear to me to conform with that. He's happy to accept a draw by SF under the triple move rule as proving a draw even when the initial occurrence was actually a win.