optimissed you claim that chess cannot be represented mathematically, so where's the proof of it. where's the math journal that contains the proof.
If @Optimissed could prove it (I haven't actually seen any attempt, but that's bye the bye), why should he need to find a maths journal to back him up. Is this a battle of the big brothers?
no, it's more so that such a proof would have already been done, and would be available to find.
optimissed you claim that chess cannot be represented mathematically, so where's the proof of it. where's the math journal that contains the proof.
If @Optimissed could prove it (I haven't actually seen any attempt, but that's bye the bye), why should he need to find a maths journal to back him up. Is this a battle of the big brothers?
no, it's more so that such a proof would have already been done, and would be available to find.
That excludes the possibility that @Optimissed is a mathematical genius who would be the first to find such a proof (see @Elroch's posts on the distinction between extremely small probabilities and impossibility).
O is constantly dishonest.
Like in his recent pretense that he's the only one discussing the forum topic.
Gross crass blatant falsehood by him.
He's actually the one getting it off topic
That's includes you btw
You also cause it to go off topic
You're projecting BC. You don't think you take it off topic?
But you're right about O - he takes things off topic more than anybody while in denial.
----------------------------------
From O (who was recently muted by chess.com - for 6 days - not the standard 24 hour robo mute)
"I actually didn't commit any offences at all."
O has zero credibility.
and O constantly commits offenses.
He is probably the most abusive person in the public forums here.
While in crass dishonest denial and crass intensely dishonest projection of same.
-------------------------------------------------
About 200 new posts just in here ...
O is constantly dishonest.
Like in his recent pretense that he's the only one discussing the forum topic.
Gross crass blatant falsehood by him.
He's actually the one getting it off topic
That's includes you btw
You also cause it to go off topic
You're projecting BC. You don't think you take it off topic?
But you're right about O - he takes things off topic more than anybody while in denial.
----------------------------------
From O (who was recently muted by chess.com - for 6 days - not the standard 24 hour robo mute)
"I actually didn't commit any offences at all."
O has zero credibility.
and O constantly commits offenses.
He is probably the most abusive person in the public forums here.
While in crass dishonest denial and crass intensely dishonest projection of same.
-------------------------------------------------
About 200 new posts just in here ...
Whether he's "projecting" or not, he is correct.
The topic of the thread is, "Chess will never be solved, here's why", not, "What are the characteristics of the contributors to this thread?".
Hi Martin !
Regarding the last 200 posts or so -
and also the entire 12,000 posts of the whole forum ...
the actual topic has been about people reacting to tygxc.
(except for O's trolling)
Does 'people reacting to tygxc' connect to the posted 'chess will never be solved' topic?
The short answer is yes.
tygxc has been providing his 'foils of illogic' for the whole two years - that people choose to keep refuting and debunking and exposing here.
However inaccurate and illogical his postings are - they're still relevant to the forum topic.
And as usual - Elroch and Dio and Martin and MEGA and mpaetz keep making the best postings.
MEGA accurately pointed out some posts ago that tygxc doesn't seem to understand 'mathematical rigor'.
tygxc really doesn't seem to.
Nor does he seem to grasp the logic that binds maths and computer realities together.
Could he have a math degree?
Its possible. Especially at lower or more basic levels of math.
Cram for exams - get enough answers right.
One only has to satisfy the examiners and professors.
----------------------------
From tygxc over the years:
'take the square root of the number of possible positions' - its almost 'infinitely' ridiculous.
'nodes per second' instead of 'ops per second' and his flat-earth positions that the 'ops per second' 'dont matter' ...
106 draws ---
verbal football games and 'tactical footholds' concering the terminologies of 'weakly solving' ...
switching from one to another of the 'go tos'.
-----------------------------------------------
tygxc is 'in his zone' and continuing to 'hold up'.
Since it can't be represented mathematically,
Dead wrong.
Trust me, this is a simple fact.
It may be a fact, but I would dispute simple.
First you have to agree on what is chess.
There are no existing sets of rules that I know of that are sufficiently well defined to arrive a categorical representation. The thread so far has introduced at least four flavours of chess, but none of the associated published rules are sufficiently unambiguous to arrive at such a representation.
None describe a zero sum game, whether or no, which is germane to the question.
(But, of course, I'm blurring the target of "simple".)
I would say - even if you just eliminate the 50 move rule and the 3-fold rule -
a project to solve chess is still looking at trillions of trillions of years to do so.
You only have to consider the 500-fold multiplying increase in number of possible positions as you add another piece to the 8 man table base and then 25,000- fold increase on adding two pieces and so on ... Powers of 500.
the numbers very rapidly get prohibitive.
Which explains why they haven't even been able to solve for 8 pieces yet after years and years.
Since it can't be represented mathematically,
Dead wrong.
Trust me, this is a simple fact.
It may be a fact, but I would dispute simple.
First you have to agree on what is chess.
There are no existing sets of rules that I know of that are sufficiently well defined to arrive a categorical representation. The thread so far has introduced at least four flavours of chess, but none of the associated published rules are sufficiently unambiguous to arrive at such a representation.
None describe a zero sum game, whether or no, which is germane to the question.
(But, of course, I'm blurring the target of "simple".)
tbf once you specify rules the game becomes a mathematical object almost by definition.
O is constantly dishonest.
Like in his recent pretense that he's the only one discussing the forum topic.
Gross crass blatant falsehood by him.
He's actually the one getting it off topic
That's includes you btw
You also cause it to go off topic
You're projecting BC. You don't think you take it off topic?
But you're right about O - he takes things off topic more than anybody while in denial.
----------------------------------
From O (who was recently muted by chess.com - for 6 days - not the standard 24 hour robo mute)
"I actually didn't commit any offences at all."
O has zero credibility.
and O constantly commits offenses.
He is probably the most abusive person in the public forums here.
While in crass dishonest denial and crass intensely dishonest projection of same.
-------------------------------------------------
About 200 new posts just in here ...
Projecting ah yes something your very good at lol
Like this post you just wrote it is projecting
Since it can't be represented mathematically,
Dead wrong.
Trust me, this is a simple fact.
It may be a fact, but I would dispute simple.
First you have to agree on what is chess.
There are no existing sets of rules that I know of that are sufficiently well defined to arrive a categorical representation. The thread so far has introduced at least four flavours of chess, but none of the associated published rules are sufficiently unambiguous to arrive at such a representation.
None describe a zero sum game, whether or no, which is germane to the question.
(But, of course, I'm blurring the target of "simple".)
tbf once you specify rules the game becomes a mathematical object almost by definition.
It is mathematical but with patterns not numbers I think
Since it can't be represented mathematically,
Dead wrong.
Trust me, this is a simple fact.
It may be a fact, but I would dispute simple.
First you have to agree on what is chess.
There are no existing sets of rules that I know of that are sufficiently well defined to arrive a categorical representation. The thread so far has introduced at least four flavours of chess, but none of the associated published rules are sufficiently unambiguous to arrive at such a representation.
None describe a zero sum game, whether or no, which is germane to the question.
(But, of course, I'm blurring the target of "simple".)
tbf once you specify rules the game becomes a mathematical object almost by definition.
It is mathematical but with patterns not numbers I think
my last math textbook had 3 numbers in it. (outside of numbers to differentiate objects)
Technically, the game of chess can be solved, here's more from ChatGPT 4.0:
"Yes, theoretically, chess can be solved if we had infinite computational power and time. In the context of game theory, "solving" a game means determining the outcome (win, lose, or draw) of every possible position assuming perfect play by both sides. This would involve:
Complete Analysis of Game Tree: Generating and evaluating the entire game tree, which includes every possible move from every possible position.
Perfect Play from Both Sides: Determining the best possible move for both players at every position to ensure the optimal outcome.
For chess, solving the game would mean:
Knowing the result (win, lose, or draw) of any given position.
Knowing the optimal move to make from any given position.
Given the current complexity of chess, with its estimated 1012010^{120}10120 possible game states, this is beyond the reach of modern computational capabilities. However, with infinite computational resources and time, it would be theoretically possible to exhaustively analyze every possible move and counter-move to determine the best possible strategies for both players.
This concept has been applied successfully to simpler games like tic-tac-toe and checkers. Checkers, for example, was "solved" by Jonathan Schaeffer and his team in 2007, meaning the game's outcome is known with perfect play from both sides."
why tf are u using chat gpt, its literally got a couple things wrong.
why the **** are u using chat gpt, its literally got a couple things wrong.
like what
why the **** are u using chat gpt, its literally got a couple things wrong.
like what
first, it ignores the fact that there are multiple definitions of "solving" in game theory.
Checkers wasnt solved in the way that chatgpt claims, it did not use that strategy NOR did the solution give the optimal move in every position.
it leaves out the ultra weak solution, and has the chess positions # completely wrong.
to be blunt, using AI as a research tool is quite frankly stupid, dishonest, and lazy. you need to have a serious look at yourself intellectually if you actually consider using it as any sort of basis or justification of claims.
There's a lot of talk about ChatGPT these days.
Many sources insist that ChatGPT is an app or tool ... and yes it obviously is.
but there is a ChatGPT website too.
Just now I saw this:
"ChatGPT can’t access the internet, even though it really looks like it can
A really common misconception about ChatGPT is that it can access URLs. I’ve seen many different examples of people pasting in a URL and asking for a summary, or asking it to make use of the content on that page in some way.
One recent example: "List the processors on https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/design/minimum/supported/windows-11-22h2-supported-intel-processors". Try that in ChatGPT and it produces a list of processors. It looks like it read the page!
I promise you ChatGPT cannot access URLs. The problem is it does an incredibly convincing impression of being able to do so, thanks to two related abilities:"
-----------------------------------------
I think we're going to hear more and more 'buzz' about ChatGPT.
On internet social media.
Youtubes claim you can 'set up a website' in a very few minutes using ChatGPT.
I'm inclined to believe that.
If you search for 'do websites require you to have ChatGPT to use the website?'
or 'do websites use ChatGPT to operate as opposed to being used to have constructed them?'
hey those are No Go.
That fits I guess.
Adding: if ChatGPT is incorporated on the stock exchange (I don't know) and one had bought stock in it early - I'm inclined to think that some people 'made a killing' on it.
And that still might be possible to do. If such stocks exist.
To buy the stock and later 'there you are'.
Doesn't mean I would recommend it though.
why tf are u using chat gpt, its literally got a couple things wrong.
Still better than some answers here...
Using ChatGPT is like using "poll the audience" on Who Wants to be a Millionaire...it's quite a bit preferable as a lifeline option to "phone a friend", unless your friend happens to have credentials in the subject matter. LLMs are decent at consensus answers that are not too specific on technical details and definitely don't require calculations. Math by public consensus gathering is just a horrible idea 
.
why tf are u using chat gpt, its literally got a couple things wrong.
Still better than some answers here...
FR.
optimissed you claim that chess cannot be represented mathematically, so where's the proof of it. where's the math journal that contains the proof.
If @Optimissed could prove it (I haven't actually seen any attempt, but that's bye the bye), why should he need to find a maths journal to back him up. Is this a battle of the big brothers?