@12560
"17 grandmasters producing 1 ply each per 5 days means it would take you over 8000 years to produce the number of moves in the partial saved checkers database"
++ The 17 ICCF (grand)masters run 3,060 CPU for 2 years to consider 10^17 positions.
Schaeffer ran 50 CPU for 2 years to consider 10^14 positions to weakly solve Checkers.
The storage of 10^7 positions has nothing to do with it.
"which were right and which were wrong"
++ The absense of decisive games implies the absense of errors (?), and that implies the absense of error pairs (?)(?) i.e. error (?) + missed win (?). That the games end in certain draws retroactively justifies all black moves as fit to draw and all white moves as unfit to win.
As soon as all reasonable white moves are exhausted Chess is weakly solved.
"if they can't see anything to do they agree a draw instead" ++ This is disrespectful.
They play drawn positions a long time, trying to squeeze something out of nothing.
If a player has no hope to avoid checkmate, then he resigns.
If both players have no hope to checkmate, then they agree on a draw.
"start your calculations with Tromp's basic rules positions which take no account of it."
++ I start estimation from Gourion's positions. A position is defined by 9.2.
When a position is repeated 3 times it is a draw.
“The absence of decisive games implies there were no errors”
Total and utter garbage. Recall a drawn game, for example, my terrible game here: https://www.chess.com/game/live/117916202157
This is a stalemate, a draw. Now, imagine this game (no matter how much it sucks) is an ICCF game.
We don’t know if there was an extremely deep error in this game. But by your logic, there isn’t, because it is a drawn, but note my game (which represents an ICCF game) is total and utter trash. This is proof your argument is invalid because all you do is assume “if draw then it perfect game 🤪” which once again is utter bogus.
@12569
"It can be inductive like Tromp's method to establish the number of legal positions or like Monte Carlo Methods."
"Wrong" ++ Right. You can calculate pi, or e, or sqrt(2) with Monte Carlo Methods.
Jeez - it's as if you don't even understand that the ESTIMATES reached are UNCERTAIN.
"Using a chess/checkers engine to guide the construction of a weak solution is very useful" OK
"If you construct a supposed weak strategy for white and there is a single legal black move that leads to a position you have not analysed, you don't have a weak strategy."
++ I construct a weak strategy for black to draw, and can leave logically inferior white moves like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? or 1 Nf3 d5 2 Ng1 unanalysed as trivial. If black can draw against the good moves, then black can a fortiori draw or even win against the bad moves. It is trivial.
Trivially invalid, yes.
Firstly, the examples you need to deal with are NOT a few random opening moves, they are quintillions of moves in positions never seen before. A low evaluation move can be the best move. Deeper versions of things like a queen sacrifice.