Dasamething0 wrote:
.
i dont have those anymore
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Not really. She tries to act young, though. Comes off more crazy than young and carefree.
ohh yuck hes back
Just think of the number of keystrokes that could be saved, inside this "tail-chasing thread," if everyone simply aqreed with the measured comment provided by Elroch below --
"They understand the same applies to a good guess that chess is a draw."
As a result -- all of us would more time to actually play the royal game. What's not to like about that possibility?
"Mathematics," writ large, notwithstanding. Ha!
hê lô chơi fi fai rất vui
Yeah i showed tygxc’s stuff to my college professor in maths and he was like what is this bogus?
but thats the whole thing...wudda they know ?...mosta them are lazies who sit around tryn2make conversation abt stuff w/out an value...really !
"They understand the same applies to a good guess that chess is a draw."
its just more probability...doesnt ans a/t. iows indifference. go ahead. be ridiculously ignorant about (2) propositions and assign the same value to each. lol !
summa u have a lot to learn (if ur still young enuf...)
Aug 22, 2024
0
#12288
There is time for both, @zborg, although the value of it may be in question...
summa u have a lot to learn (if ur still young enuf...) Can’t you talk in anything but slang and abbreviations?
Indeed, perhaps the "answer" to most binary questions is "both?"
Because we live in a macroscopic, quantum mechanical world, and HUMAN AGENCY remains always present, thus rendering the future uncertain.
[Bold / Bald Assertion] -- the only place where all our binary questions are answered is inside the MULTIVERSE.
But that's a discussion for yet another massively posted thread, is it not? Ha!
Elroch wrote:
There is time for both, @zborg, although the value of it may be in question...
Excellent. I am finally beginning to comprehend your (evident) persuasiveness. Thank you for your erudition. Much appreciated, today. 
"Time enables quality"
zborg wrote:
Just think of the number of keystrokes that could be saved, inside this "tail-chasing thread," if everyone simply aqreed with the measured comment provided by Elroch below --
"They understand the same applies to a good guess that chess is a draw."
That's a reasonable point. Although, assuming that chess is a draw isn't really the issue (for me).
A complete tablebase, with "Draw" or "Distance-to-Mate" listed for every possible position - now there's the real challenge ...
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
Yeah i showed tygxc’s stuff to my college professor in maths and he was like what is this bogus?
but thats the whole thing...wudda they know ?...mosta them are lazies who sit around tryn2make conversation abt stuff w/out an value...really !
wow you assume many things about college, have you ever been on one?
Aug 22, 2024
0
#12294
Tschaederer wrote:
Heres another one: there is literally no one best move
See, if player x is making a really bad move it can still be good depending on his plan, situation, chess position etc
Player y plays only good moves but doesn’t really have a plan so he never sacrifices a piece of his or anything
Even though player y may be better in analysis of the game he didn’t win computers which do these analysations don’t see bigger plans they only see the move itself
Which means that as soon as a player gets good it isn’t really about the move but rather the entire game having to be played very well and with a great plan
Plus chess is at some point a game of luck since it’s all about the tactics. if your opponent has a bad tactic you’re probably going to win even if you have a good strategy you can lose by one singular wrong move
Chess is not solvable, at least not for us. Since we humans cannot process the insanely large number of moves possible
We can also never win 100% because if two players have exactly equal skill levels (lets say maximum because then they can’t get better suddenly in the middle of the game) they will not come to an end unless there is a tie or a chess timer
That would mean that skill doesn’t matter anymore unless you are playing against someone who hasn’t got this level of skill
Plus everyone else would come to the same level of skill someday and if that happens then there would be literally no way to win with pure skill
See, if player x is making a really bad move it can still be good depending on his plan, situation, chess position etc
Player y plays only good moves but doesn’t really have a plan so he never sacrifices a piece of his or anything
Even though player y may be better in analysis of the game he didn’t win computers which do these analysations don’t see bigger plans they only see the move itself
Which means that as soon as a player gets good it isn’t really about the move but rather the entire game having to be played very well and with a great plan
Plus chess is at some point a game of luck since it’s all about the tactics. if your opponent has a bad tactic you’re probably going to win even if you have a good strategy you can lose by one singular wrong move
Chess is not solvable, at least not for us. Since we humans cannot process the insanely large number of moves possible
We can also never win 100% because if two players have exactly equal skill levels (lets say maximum because then they can’t get better suddenly in the middle of the game) they will not come to an end unless there is a tie or a chess timer
That would mean that skill doesn’t matter anymore unless you are playing against someone who hasn’t got this level of skill
Plus everyone else would come to the same level of skill someday and if that happens then there would be literally no way to win with pure skill
But there are many tactics puzzles positions where there's a single best move.
Over 50,000 of such puzzles available on chess.com.
How many 'one best move' positions are there in all of chess?
Nobody knows.
Because that 4x 10^44 number of possible positions is just Too Daunting to find all of those.
Most such one best positions on the website come from games or studies.
But perhaps the tablebase projects are generating more of them.
Aug 22, 2024
0
#12295
Elroch wrote:
tygxc wrote:
Will you win a game against Carlsen? Certainly not. more precisely: 0.0000541%
People with advanced mathematical qualifications understand that 0.000000541 does not equal zero.
They understand the same applies to a good guess that chess is a draw.
They understand that you need random events to be independent in order to multiply probabilities.
For some reason, you aren't even capable of learning that when told.
But tygxc ... the T-guy recently maintained that he knows better and more than everybody else here.
He doesn't usually say that directly.
But could that be behind all of his thousands of posts here for two years now?
Trying to send that message - whether believing it or not?
I believe that the T-guy has enough intelligence to not believe such a thing - (unlike the absent guy)
But even if Tguy actually entertains such a notion about himself - he's had enough intelligence not to constantly spam it directly. Unlike the absent guy.
But does T actually internally entertain such thinking?
Is that what has caused his thousands of posts here the last two years?
Curious.
wow you assume many things about college, have you ever been on one?
have u ever hearda s/t called "educated citiots" ?...idk...i find that nvm...its funny to me...but then im weird so...
member what keynes (1921) said ?...the principle of indifference asserts that [...] may lead to paradoxical and even contradictory conclusions.
While I would expect probabilities predicted by the Elo system to be less accurate for large rating differences (a scientifically testable hypothesis) I am not going to object to him using the Elo formula to calculate an irrelevant probability.
There is so much worse and more relevant to draw attention to!
true lol, tygxc does like to throw random irrelevant "facts" to sound like he knows what he's talking about.