@12038
"We only here to discuss if chess is solvable or not."
++ For all practical purpose chess already is ultra-weakly solved and the game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw.
Weakly solving chess in now ongoing as a by-product of the ICCF World Championship finals: 114 draws out of 114 games show how to draw.
Strongly solving chess to a 32-men table base of all 10^44 legal positions is expected by 2100 by retrograde analysis with quantum computing.
@12035
"probability of which event"
P(A errs) is the probability that player A makes an error.
P (double error) is the probability that A makes an error and B missed the win.
"lack of depth is more than 1-2 ply, thus it most of the time wouldn't make a difference"
++ I say
P (B misses the win | A has erred) < P(A errs)
but the difference may not be large.
ah yes, just assume your conclusion, even though they are providing evidence that your justification is false.
"errors suspected initially would very rarely happen" ++ They keep a record of prior analysis. Whenever a player plays a move less expected, there is reason to think longer.
this of course ignores the basic fact of why an error would occur: it's out of computational depth. tygxc just ASSUMES that errors would not be the expected move.
"some data on their time usage"
++ 'I never take fewer than two days and often as many as 10.' - Edwards
not data, just a quote.
"if vast majority of errors happen out of current engines capabilities"
++ The vast majority of errors happens from human factors: dubious opening selection, hasty move, clerical error, illness... This is clear from inspection of decisive games in previous years.
you cant prove that, as we cannot detect errors out of current engines capabilities BY DEFINITION.
@12038
"We only here to discuss if chess is solvable or not."
++ For all practical purpose chess already is ultra-weakly solved and the game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw.
by definition chess isnt ultra weakly solved (a proof of the games outcome given perfect play). A game solution is a formal proof, tygxc doesnt understand what a formal proof is, so he thinks that conventional game knowledge counts as "logic" or "proof".
Weakly solving chess in now ongoing as a by-product of the ICCF World Championship finals: 114 draws out of 114 games show how to draw.
this is a weird delusion by tygxc where he thinks the fact that the computers are drawing each other means they are perfect. Weakly solving a game is creating an algorithm (through a game tree or invariants, or both) to guarantee the best possible result against any possible opposition, and proving that said algorithm is perfect. the ICCF games, of course, have no such proof of perfection.
Strongly solving chess to a 32-men table base of all 10^44 legal positions is expected by 2100 by rtetrograde analysis with quantum computing.
this is based on a wild assumption that tygxc makes where he thinks that quantum computing will somehow not only grow at an exponential rate for 80 years, but also be optimized for chess. all current experts in the field disagree with these claims, but tygxc repeats it as fact for some reason.
see what i mean by lack of logical capacity?
tygxc cant argue against my posts, so he just downvotes them and acts like hes being victimized.
There is no such thing as "is expected". There is such a thing as a person expecting something.
What @tygxc is saying (in a disguised way) that @tygxc expects "Strongly solving chess to a 32-men table base of all 10^44 legal positions [...] by rtetrograde [sic] analysis with quantum computing" by 2100.
This is a legitimate speculation, and I have speculated similarly myself (while noting that it might be impossible). Speculation is not a reliable forecast.
@12035
"probability of which event"
P(A errs) is the probability that player A makes an error.
P (double error) is the probability that A makes an error and B missed the win.
"lack of depth is more than 1-2 ply, thus it most of the time wouldn't make a difference"
++ I say
P (B misses the win | A has erred) < P(A errs)
but the difference may not be large.
"errors suspected initially would very rarely happen" ++ They keep a record of prior analysis. Whenever a player plays a move less expected, there is reason to think longer.
"some data on their time usage"
++ 'I never take fewer than two days and often as many as 10.' - Edwards
"do they run into time trouble"
++ Yes, it happens they use up all 50 days/10 moves and then have to reply the same day.
"My assumption is that Grischuk like bad time usage is rare." ++ It happens. If you want to outthink your opponent and his engines, then you have to spend more time than he does.
"if vast majority of errors happen out of current engines capabilities"
++ The vast majority of errors happens from human factors: dubious opening selection, hasty move, clerical error, illness... This is clear from inspection of decisive games in previous years.
"P (B misses the win | A has erred) < P(A errs)"
I think you have something confused. This would mean that there is no tendency for error pairs at all, the opposite would be true in fact. It would mean that the initial conditions are more favourable for an error than a state where the engine at serious depth has already misevaluated the position and starting from the next turn is now supposed to follow the winning line. This shouldn't be a part of your argument and it would make no practical sense.
Also the function you made doesn't seem right as A errs * A errs is not relevant for anything.
++ For all practical purpose chess already is ultra-weakly solved
This is exactly as valid as the statement "For all practical purposes, uranium is cheese".
This is an embarrassing repeated blunder. I can guarantee that NO-ONE who has published a paper relating to ultra-weak solving would agree with it, nor anyone who understands what the term means or familiar with how it is used competently.
In mathematics, remarkable people are sometimes able to sketch out how a proof of a difficult result might be structured, with the proof itself taking decades of work to produce. There is nothing that could even be described as a sketch of what an ultra-weak solution of chess would look like (except for weak and strong solutions, which technically qualify as ultra-weak solutions).
@12044
"there is no tendency for error pairs at all" ++ Indeed. Error pairs are something typical for human play with a clock. I make an incorrect sacrifice, instead of calculating you decline the sacrifice. I allow a correct sacrifice, instead of calculating you refrain from sacificing.
"the initial conditions are more favourable for an error than a state where the engine at serious depth has already misevaluated the position and starting from the next turn is now supposed to follow the winning line" ++ Yes, with understanding that both human players are different, their engines and their settings are different, and the time per move is usually different.
"A errs * A errs is not relevant for anything"
P(double error) < P²(single error) is relevant.
For example 114 draws out of 114 games means that if game 115 were decisive then P(single error) = 1/115, and thus P(double error) = 1/115/115 = 0.008%
If the 114 draws were to include 1 game with a double error,
then 11 games with a single error, i.e. decisive games would be expected.
If the 114 draws were to include 2 games with a double error,
then 15 games with a single error, i.e. decisive games would be expected.
If the 114 draws were to include 3 games with a double error,
then 18 games with a single error, i.e. decisive games would be expected.
@12044
"there is no tendency for error pairs at all" ++ Indeed. Error pairs are something typical for human play with a clock. I make an incorrect sacrifice, instead of calculating you decline the sacrifice. I allow a correct sacrifice, instead of calculating you refrain from sacificing.
.... thats literally exactly what would happen in an ICCF engine game too lmfao. its just that engine power outstrips human power.
"the initial conditions are more favourable for an error than a state where the engine at serious depth has already misevaluated the position and starting from the next turn is now supposed to follow the winning line" ++ Yes, with understanding that both human players are different, their engines and their settings are different, and the time per move is usually different.
thats the same for human games too lmfao, that doesnt make errors independent. or what, do they not meet your arbitrary and ever changing definition of "sufficiently strong"?
"A errs * A errs is not relevant for anything"
P(double error) < P²(single error) is relevant.
For example 114 draws out of 114 games means that if game 115 were decisive then P(single error) = 1/115, and thus P(double error) = 1/115/115 = 0.008%
making calculations off of what has pointed out to be a faulty variable isnt logic, but delusion.
If the 114 draws were to include 1 game with a double error,
then 11 games with a single error, i.e. decisive games would be expected.
If the 114 draws were to include 2 games with a double error,
then 15 games with a single error, i.e. decisive games would be expected.
If the 114 draws were to include 3 games with a double error,
then 18 games with a single error, i.e. decisive games would be expected.
WOW, SUCH INCREDIBLE GUESSES ON YOUR END. IF ONLY THEY WERE IN THE FORM OF MATHEMATICAL PROOF CONSIDERING HOW YOU CLAIM IT AS SUCH.
ah yes, continue to dodge the core argument you respond to and instead take a side comment they made out of context tygxc. that'll be sure to convince them.
@12031
"The paper explicitly states no promotions of any type, but if you look through the content that is not what is calculated. It's the statement that is at fault."
++ No promotions in the title is just short for no promotions to pieces not previously captured
"diagrams such as this are included in the count, where there must have been promotions"
++ Yes, also generally it is impossible to tell if a piece is original or promoted.
"On the other hand the paper is correct in stating diagrams. No side to move etc."
++ Tromp does the same and multiplies by 2 for diagrams to positions, which is correct except when a king is in check.
Tromp counts basic rules positions not competition rules positions.
The factor of two is not correct except when a king is in check. There are many other diagrams where only one side can legally have the move (every game includes at least one such). You're correct in pointing out that the factor of two to account for side to move is too high, but I would suggest by very little (without putting an exact constraint on it).
"@tygxc has arbitrarily multiplied by 10" ++ Not arbitrarily, but 10.9456.
Then you need to fix your calculator. 3.8521...e37 x 10.9456 = 4.2163...e38.
"to account for a factor of 2 for side to move"
++ No, that factor 2 of diagrams to positions is undone by the factor 1/2 for diagrams to nodes, except when a position is up/down symmetrical.
What factor of 1/2 for diagrams to nodes? You appear to be planning to use SF either alone (in some posts) or by proxy through ICCF players (in others). While there is a symmetry in the game tree from interchanging the colours of the pieces and the side to move (as used in tablebase construction) I don't think SF exploits that symmetry in any way, that is it I don't think it will reuse an evaluation from a cashed symmetrical position because the overhead of checking for it would outweigh the benefit.
From diagrams to nodes in the game tree as used by SF is not a reduction in any way, quite the opposite. SF is designed to play competition rules chess. For correct function SF needs the FEN of the last ply count 0 position and the subsequent moves. That is a diagram and a limited amount of history. The factor of 100 which I mentioned is a small part of that (conveniently you ignore the factor of 100 I mentioned and concentrate instead on trying to eliminate the factor 2).
"a factor which could be determined by reworking the figures in the paper for the addition of up to two queens" ++ That is exactly what I did.
A factor 3.8E41 / 1.9E40/4 for = 4.97 for 1 extra queen
A factor 3.6E42/ 1.9E40/4/4/2 = 5.97 for 2 extra queens, one white, one black
Total factor 4.97 + 5.97 = 10.95
In that case I apologise for saying you didn't. However you seem to have omitted the case of two queens of the same colour. But before attempting it again I would still recommend fixing your calculator.
"exact description of the method he proposes"
ICCF (grand)master + 2 servers of 90*10^6 servers, average 5 days/ply
You don't appear to understand what an exact description of a procedure entails. What are we to take from that? Where's the output? If someone wants to know what moves to play to get the best result is your solution simply going to print, "ICCF (grand)master + 2 servers of 90*10^6 servers, average 5 days/ply"?
"doesn't intend to include the majority of lines" ++ Some lines can be dismissed right away because of game knowledge and logic, like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? or 1 Nf3 d5 2 Ng1. The former is sure to lose, the latter might still draw, but does not even try to win and is thus logically inferior.
So if as Black I play 1...e5 against 1.e4 and my opponent plays 2.Ba6 and I want to know what move to play, your solution tells me, "Play ICCF (grand)master + 2 servers of 90*10^6 servers, average 5 days/ply". Not what anyone in the world but you would class as much of a solution.
'Chess is a generalised trade' - Botvinnik
You can trade material, time, and position,
but giving away material, time, or position for no return can be dismissed right away.
"[so regardless of ]how long it might take[ it wouldn't be a solution in any normal sense]"
++ ICCF WC33 Finals started 20 July 2022 and still 22 games are ongoing, 114 ended in draws.
We might get further if you addressed the points in the posts to which you respond instead if cobbling together something you'd like to talk about by snipping bits out of them.
A set of practical games played under different rules is obviously not strongly related in any way to a theoretical solution of chess.
"a solution in any normal sense" ++ It is a weak solution: it shows how to draw.
It is redundant and thus fail safe, but not yet complete.
Here I show you how to draw from the KQvK position shown.
It's redundant because I show two ways and also fail safe (which has nothing to do with redundancy). This one is also complete in that all legal Black responses are considered.
Do you like it?
Hint: It's NOT a weak solution of the position according to the definition you keep posting.
@12044
"there is no tendency for error pairs at all" ++ Indeed. Error pairs are something typical for human play with a clock.
Deliberate misrepresentation. What @Kotshmot actually said was "I think you have something confused. This would mean that there is no tendency for error pairs at all" (implying that this is obviously not so).
There is an excellent reason why error pairs occur in engine games as well as human games. If the horizon effect causes an error, the other player will typically only spot that error if a mere one extra ply of analysis reveals it. This is not usually the case.
and to ans the OP's question ?...its already been solved. we dum sapiens just hafta find it thats all. cuz the beautiful eloquence a math never lied in its calculations its always lied in its philosophy. a philosophy just now being applied to uncover certain secrets...thanx to murphys law...yee !!
@12044
"there is no tendency for error pairs at all" ++ Indeed. Error pairs are something typical for human play with a clock.
Deliberate misrepresentation. What @Kotshmot actually said was "I think you have something confused. This would mean that there is no tendency for error pairs at all" (implying that this is obviously not so).
There is an excellent reason why error pairs occur in engine games as well as human games. If the horizon effect causes an error, the other player will typically only spot that error if a mere one extra ply of analysis reveals it. This is not usually the case.
Quoting
I think you have something confused. This would mean that there is no tendency for error pairs at all, the opposite would be true in fact.
as
there is no tendency for error pairs at all
certainly smacks of deliberate misrepresentation.
Had @tygxc bothered to look at the sample SFvSF games I posted for him where I went to the trouble of marking the blunders he would see that "error" pairs are something typical of SFvSF play also.
What are we arguing about again? It went from Solving chess, best and perfect run draws, to the possible amount of winning moves in an ICCF comp, to a SFvSF practical game????
basically tygxc's entire platform is based on false assumptions, and he tries to layer it with fallacious distractions. people'cant help but point out the flaws in his distractions, so tygxc tries to layer even more fallacious distractions, which people cant help but point out. eventually, when the discussion gets esoteric to the point that tygxc cannot follow, he starts taking people out of context and asserting his initial false assumptions.
tygxc tries to quote articles as if its him doing the research.
Which as we know - wouldn't work.
But in reading through the recent posts which have the usual high quality except for tygxc's posts ...
ideas:
The issue of how engines are programmed to modify their processing when the engine gets to
1) it appears the opponent made a mistake
2) it appears the opponent Might have made a mistake
3) time to play for a win
4) time to play for a draw
5) not clear whether to play for a win or a draw.
The 114 consecutive ICCF draws look very very suspect. Its like the engines were programmed to play for draws instead of for wins. Regardless of how their human guide might have made some moves otherwise.
To compute all positions in chess (10^120) it would take millions of years. Would be solved one day but Earth would have gone by several changes by then. And only if there are humans or robots, then chess can be solved else not.
To compute all positions in chess (10^120) it would take millions of years. Would be solved one day but Earth would have gone by several changes by then. And only if there are humans or robots, then chess can be solved else not.
10^120 games would take trillions of years or much more than that.
But the number of possible legal positions is bounded by a number over 10^44.
Which is still a daunting and prohibitive number.
You can start generating these numbers yourself simply by considering that a chessboard square can only have 13 states.
So right away you get a first upper bound of 13^64.
But you can rapidly start cutting that down by arguing an upper bound for the two Kings of 64 x 60 times 11^62 for the other pieces.
It gets progressively harder but you can cut that down further without sophisticated math.
And get more accurate by making three sets of numbers for whether at least one King is on a corner square or edge square or midboard square.
--------------------------------------------------
You can factor in the number of ways 32 squares must be empty since there's only a max of 32 pieces.
You can factor in that pawns can only be on 48 squares.
Eventually a number between 10^44 and 10^45 is arrived at.
With current technology you could take trillions of years to try to table-base solve all of those and you're not going to get there.
@12055
"all positions in chess (10^120) "
++ Chess has 10^44 legal positions, of which 10^37 without promotions to pieces not previously captured, 10^38 without underpromotions to pieces not previously captured, 10^34 that could result from optimal play by both sides and 10^17 relevant to weakly solving Chess.
"millions of years" ++ Weakly solving Chess is now ongoing in 2 years.
@12052
"It went from Solving chess, best and perfect run draws, to the possible amount of winning moves in an ICCF comp, to a SFvSF practical game."
++ The ongoing ICCF World Championship Finals (17 ICCF (grand)masters with each 2 servers of 90 million positions/s at 5 days/move is now weakly solving Chess: 114 draws out of 114 games.
What this forum has turned to? We only here to discuss if chess is solvable or not. I lost track of this discussion. Wish the forum has a better future.
its basically tygxc spreading misinformation while people correct him.t he discussion is over, it's just that tygxc doesnt have the basic logical capacity to realize how wrong he is. this isnt my personal opinion or anything. ive literally gone to mathematicians to verify how delusional he is, and they reprimanded me for wasting their time with his stupidity.