playerafar wrote:
Got a better forum here these days!
Its clear how and why.
Well, it's been reduced to an echo chamber with a wierd creepy supervisor. Not sure if that's better.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
@12413
"there are more chess positions then 500,000,000"
++ There are 10^44 legal chess positions, 10^38 from a box of 34 chess men including a spare white and black queen. Of these 10^17 are necessary to weakly solve chess.
Hm
Aug 15, 2024
0
#12045
tygxc wrote:
@12413
"there are more chess positions then 500,000,000"
++ There are 10^44 legal chess positions
No, with high confidence it is near 4.6 x 10^44
, 10^38 from a box of 34 chess men including a spare white and black queen.
This is the junior version, irrelevant to solving chess. I am sure many kids are unaware about underpromotion and not aware that you can promote more than one extra queen, and this suggests @tygxc doesn't either.
There is no doubt (explicit examples) that multiple promotions and underpromotions can be optimal (including promotion to an extra bishop or rook). Much more extreme things happen in say a mere quadrillion positions than the less than a billion that comprise the master database (it's a million times larger, so contains things that happen a million times less often) or the 10,000 ICCF positions ( 
) that @tygxc naively thinks solves chess, never mind the maybe 10^30 positions needed for a weak solution of chess (based on the parallel of the successful solution of checkers).
Of these 10^17 are necessary to weakly solve chess., and
A number that has no relevance to the solving of chess, arising from when @tygxc thought you could simply ignore opponent moves without any analysis if they have a low evaluation. Maybe he still does. Or maybe he doesn't even know what he's assuming.
Aug 15, 2024
0
#12046
7zx wrote:
playerafar wrote:
Got a better forum here these days!
Its clear how and why.
Well, it's been reduced to an echo chamber with a wierd creepy supervisor. Not sure if that's better.
Its not an echo chamber.
Hey 7 if you hate this forum so much what are you doing here?
I don't hate the forum. Although it was more fun when Optimissed was around.
What are you doing here?
Aug 15, 2024
0
#12048
7zx wrote:
I don't hate the forum. Although it was more fun when Optimissed was around.
What are you doing here?
Yes you do hate it.
That's why you're here.
You like to complain.
If you want to know why people are here then read the posts and talk about the subjects instead of your trolling and whining.
But ... you wont do that. Right?
Aug 15, 2024
0
#12049
From Elroch's last post:
"Of these 10^17 are necessary to weakly solve chess., and"
(disinformation from tygxc)
and Elroch's correct reply:
"A number that has no relevance to the solving of chess, arising from when @tygxc thought you could simply ignore opponent moves without any analysis if they have a low evaluation. Maybe he still does. Or maybe he doesn't even know what he's assuming."
-------------------------------------
tygxc is spreading disinformation.
But that is also a 'foil' for other members to present the real information and have the real discussions about things that tygxc brings up.
So tygxc is not useless.
tygxc is 'on a mission'.
So is 'Washi' in the climate denialforum.
He constantly presents disinformation in that forum.
That's not an 'attack' though. Washi is proud of doing so.
I found out recently that he was also 'active' in the Covid forum too and got himself blocked there.
Washi is definitely 'on a mission'. Intensely.
Aug 15, 2024
0
#12050
7zx wrote:
I don't hate the forum. Although it was more fun when Optimissed was around.
What are you doing here?
What happened to @Optimissed?
Aug 15, 2024
0
#12051
Elroch wrote:
7zx wrote:
I don't hate the forum. Although it was more fun when Optimissed was around.
What are you doing here?
What happened to @Optimissed?
i think i got him perma muted, because literally within the hour that his posts ceased, I got a message from chess.com saying the report i filed against him had resulted in action taken.
Aug 15, 2024
0
#12053
Elroch wrote:
7zx wrote:
I don't hate the forum. Although it was more fun when Optimissed was around.
What are you doing here?
What happened to @Optimissed?
Apparently he's been muted for repeat offenses.
Not very surprising.
I predict that when he returns he'll pretend nothing happened and that he was absent voluntarily.
But soon he'll be saying 'cabal'.
And then - well you know.
But while he's been gone I'd say we've had more of a shift into the actual subjects. A very positive shift.
And in the climate denial forum - a better dissection of that behaviour and disinformation.
With positive motion forward and more of a shift into the real science.
@12429
"with high confidence it is near 4.6 x 10^44"
++ No, it is (4.82 +- 0.03) * 10^44 and Tromp established that with inductive mathematics.
"This is the junior version"
++ No. It is the senior version. Underpromotions happen, but are rare.
Promotions to pieces not previously captured happen, but are rare.
The combination of underpromotion and promotion to a piece not previously captured happens only in junior chess, not in millions of master games, not in the 116 perfect games of the ICCF World Championship Finals.
"10^30 positions needed for a weak solution of chess"
++ Schaeffer needed 10^7 * 10^7 = 10^14 = (5*10^20)^0.67 positions for Checkers.
'The perfect Alpha-Beta search will halve the exponent' - Schaeffer
Chess engines have evolved more than Chinook.
Chess is easier to prune than Checkers.
Therefore Chess should be able to get at exponent 0.5
Thus
(3*10^37 * 2 / 2 * 10.9456 / 10,000)^0.5 = 1.8*10^17
positions are relevant to weakly solving Chess.
playerafar wrote:
7zx wrote:
I don't hate the forum. Although it was more fun when Optimissed was around.
What are you doing here?
Yes you do hate it.
That's why you're here.
You like to complain.
If you want to know why people are here then read the posts and talk about the subjects instead of your trolling and whining.
But ... you wont do that. Right?
You raised the subject of whether the forum has got better.
I gave my opinion about that. You seem to have a problem.
Very little of what you post is about the subject.
Aug 15, 2024
0
#12057
tygxc wrote:
@12429
"with high confidence it is near 4.6 x 10^44"
++ No, it is (4.82 +- 0.03) * 10^44 and Tromp established that with inductive mathematics.
While my typo was a 5% error, you originally had a 380% error!
"This is the junior version"
++ No. It is the senior version. Underpromotions happen, but are rare.
If "are rare" meant "never happen" that would have been worth writing. It doesn't and it wasn't. Even your "rare" is based on empirical statistics from the moves played in games.
There is another point you don't understand that a lot of the essential analysis needed to solve chess is of imperfect play, because we don't KNOW it is imperfect until the analysis is done. You think you can do without the positions in the analysis! This is a blunder, and I think one which is beyond you to get past.
Promotions to pieces not previously captured happen, but are rare.
The combination of underpromotion and promotion to a piece not previously captured happens only in junior chess, not in millions of master games, not in the 116 perfect games of the ICCF World Championship Finals.
You are making fun of yourself now, with your sample of 10,000 positions. It's as if you don't even know that the engines had to look at a LOT more positions and weren't just doing it for fun. Do tell me how many of those positions had multiple underpromotions? What? You have no knowledge at all?
"10^30 positions needed for a weak solution of chess"
++ Schaeffer needed 10^7 * 10^7 = 10^14 = (5*10^20)^0.67 positions for Checkers.
'The perfect Alpha-Beta search will halve the exponent' - Schaeffer
Chess engines have evolved more than Chinook.
And chess is much harder than checkers. Even allowing for the increase in computing power.
Chess is easier to prune than Checkers.
Pruning opponent moves is forbidden in a weak solution. No excuses.
Therefore Chess should be able to get at exponent 0.5
Thus
(3*10^37 * 2 / 2 * 10.9456 / 10,000)^0.5 = 1.8*10^17
positions are relevant to weakly solving Chess.
Everything about your calculation is wrong.
We're going to disagree again Elroch.
i'd be careful...knowing him & knowing u. (and dont use 'We're' buster lol !)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUrzicaiRLU
Got a better forum here these days!
Its clear how and why.
elroch was referring to the 50 move being unnecessary in the mathematical game of chess, not the played game of chess, im pretty sure.
Hi MEGA.
'Not theoretically' is what I addressed.
The 3 fold rule looks 'easier' to incorporate into tablebase projects.
Because anytime it would be added to possibilities it just knocks out some moves that have to be solved beforehand anyway.
Its not necessary to have a game history leading up to the tablebase position.
But the nasty part is that all pieces for the side to move have to be considered as 'possible threefold'?
Can be thought about further.
If a move before is going to create 'the first two-fold rep' the next ply cannot create a three fold but might create a 3 fold possibility for the other player.
------------------------------
But with the 50 mover - it looks tougher.
But if you're tablebasing back ...
then what about just adding a 49 possibility as with 3 fold?
The 50th first ply of the complete move-pair doesn't do it.
The second ply has to do that.
But if that's taken care of -
then since its being tablebased back - well in earlier 'solves' you don't do 48 moves.
----------------------
And at the outset you don't do 3 fold and 50 moves at all. And they don't.
To reinforce this - they're not even doing castling - which shouldn't be that tough.
Why not?
Because of how tough it is already.
Took years just to 'easier solve' for seven pieces.
Eight pieces?
Daunting.
Eventually as more pieces are added it becomes like comparing space travel to Alpha Centauri the nearest star to our sun - (not possible with current technology) with inter-galactic travel. (no way Jose)
When heading up to 20 pieces on board - that's like traveling to the nearest other Big Bang out there.