nah bro yall are ganging up an tygxc
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Jun 21, 2024
0
#12444
ardutgamersus wrote:
nah bro yall are ganging up an tygxc
because he's literally just spouting BS. the longer you stay on this thread the more you realize how much tygxc deserves to be clowned on.
Jun 21, 2024
0
#12446
he is more of a clown than ronald mcdonald and more of a joker than joker
Jun 21, 2024
0
#12447
ardutgamersus wrote:
ik i’ve been here for quite a bit
what's your verdict, do you think tygxc believes what he's saying or do you think he's trolling
Jun 21, 2024
0
#12448
tygxc im still waiting on your response to the fact that i wasted my professors time to tell me what i already knew about your fallacies.
Jun 21, 2024
0
#12449
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
ardutgamersus wrote:
ik i’ve been here for quite a bit
what's your verdict, do you think tygxc believes what he's saying or do you think he's trolling
judging by his stuborness he might actually believe all that
utter buffoon behavior, admit when you’re wrong
Jun 21, 2024
0
#12450
Cirrin wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
tygxc im still waiting on your response to the fact that i wasted my professors time to tell me what i already knew about your fallacies.
He's online, he's not playing chess, he's not replying
Only one thing he's doing: downvoting
yeah he’s prob salty
Tkay8535 wrote:
Chess has not been solved and is unlikely to be solved with current technology, future advancements might change this. Chess2Play ( earn cash ) However, due to the game's immense complexity, it remains one of the most challenging puzzles in computational game theory.
Did you think you were going to just slip your ad in unnoticed?
llama_l wrote:
ardutgamersus wrote:
nah bro yall are ganging up an tygxc
Ganging up on someone in a social situation is not nice.
"Ganging up" on someone in terms of making claims about facts and evidence is a useful social function which can be compared to distributive computing i.e. different people come up with different ideas, and then the community rejects the bad ones. In such a situation it's not bad to be wrong since you were just doing your job. The failing here is that tygxc is either unwilling or unable to understand. In normal human communities he'd be ignored or kicked out, but chess.com forums are very lightly moderated meaning he's free to keep posting nonsense, and so others are constantly pointing out it's nonsense.
This is the crux of the problem...lax moderation with no structure and no community manager. Well, let me qualify that...these positions are in fact filled, but the people in them have been told to let the forums rot in favor of live chat, Discord, etc.
i devved some sw (w/a great big shoutout to reddit & github...sooo TY ! ) & got exactly 54,986,815,831,389 hard moves for the first 10-ply. i kinda expect #'s like under 10^43 to be way-way too dwarfy. this includes all mates in 2,3,4, & 5...all (14) en passants...K/Q-side castles...& all 5-move marchdowns to all (4) piece promos.
so im short...if smarter ppls calcs are right (69,352,859,712,417). im trusting they took in 'quick' mates. if not ?...it'd reduce their #'s.
RikLikesTacos wrote:
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
i devved some sw (w/a great big shoutout to reddit & github...sooo TY ! ) & got exactly 54,986,815,831,389 hard moves for the first 10-ply. i kinda expect #'s like under 10^43 to be way-way too dwarfy. this includes all mates in 2,3,4, & 5...all (14) en passants...K/Q-side castles...& all 5-move marchdowns to all (4) piece promos.
so im short...if smarter ppls calcs are right (69,352,859,712,417). im trusting they took in 'quick' mates. if not ?...it'd reduce their #'s a hobunch.
I'm so confused
This is how to act smart and dumb at the same time
Jun 21, 2024
0
#12456
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
i devved some sw (w/a great big shoutout to reddit & github...sooo TY ! ) & got exactly 54,986,815,831,389 hard moves for the first 10-ply. i kinda expect #'s like under 10^43 to be way-way too dwarfy. this includes all mates in 2,3,4, & 5...all (14) en passants...K/Q-side castles...& all 5-move marchdowns to all (4) piece promos.
so im short...if smarter ppls calcs are right (69,352,859,712,417). im trusting they took in 'quick' mates. if not ?...it'd reduce their #'s.
idk we would have to see the rest of the calculations
Jun 21, 2024
0
#12457
What exactly is your number meant to be, Ghostess? The same as below?
As you say, OEIS has the 26% higher number 69,352,859,712,417 for the number of possible 10 ply chess games (and is a very reliable source). On the other hand the number of _positions_ after 10 ply is surely much smaller due to transposition. And there are surely _not_ enough short mates to make up the difference. In fact _all_ of the games with 0 to 9 plys added together are only a few percent of the number of those with 10 plies. (See OEIS).
Even if your calculation is not working as intended, kudos for trying to do such a computationally demanding thing. Probably none of the others here have dared to try!
To try to determine the reason, I would suggest doing the same calculation for 1, 2, 3 ... ply.
Jun 21, 2024
0
#12458
shigshug wrote:
... since the number chess games is like 10^120 power according to mathematician Claude Shannon.
More misinformation.
Shannon never said that the number of possible chess games was 10¹²⁰ - read his paper.
The number of possible games under FIDE basic rules is infinite (ℵ₀ if you count only finite games, ב₁ if you count games of length ω).
The number of possible games under FIDE competition rules is estimated to be somewhere between 10²⁹²⁴¹ and 10³⁴⁰⁸² according to this paper.
Jun 21, 2024
0
#12459
tygxc wrote:
@12737
I did not compile the random sample of 10,000 (Tromp did), I only inspected and found (by big red telephone) none can result from optimal play by both sides. Tromp conjectured only 1 in 1,000,000 could qualify. (Sounds unlikely - where? Is this another of your made up quotes?)
That explains the reduction from 10^38 to 10^34 or 10^32 (but not why you should be starting with 10^38 in the first place nor what optimal play has to do with anything you've so far proposed as a non solution).
Jun 21, 2024
0
#12460
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
@tygxc I really dont get how you can stomach KNOWING that you're wrong and deciding to purposefully mislead others anyways. Is it like what playerafar conjectures and you just want the attention? Or do you get a sick kick out of seeing people take your lies seriously?
there's also the possibility that you are just profoundly deluded and uneducated. but at the same time, if you were just uneducated, you would respond to people doing basic corrections to your claims, and I know that you've seen my retellings of how I've brought up your "logic" to math professors and got chided for even bothering with someone as stupid as you are. Do you think I just made it up?
Hi MEGA
when considering tygxc's motivations including the ones you and I have mentioned ...
such motivations are usually not exclusive of each other.
In other words and/or instead of just 'or'.
A or B. Or both.
And if more than two - possibly all.
It may seem that one might knock out another as a possibility ...
but with the internal psyche of those who don't care whether they believe themselves or not and thereby 'lose track' of that - there's typically internal oscillations and vacillations and cycles regarding how much they believe of their nonsense.
Its a transient situation.
And it shows as whoever trolling/disinforming moves around a clock face of different retorts and tactics.
Which can take weeks or days or even just minutes - to move around that dial.
----------------------------------
With tygxc though - while he's pushing his disinfo - he's never that far from the forum topic plus he's minimally personal.
O - that's @Optimissed - is much much worse.
tygxc's posts appear to reflect that he wants the discussions to be about the forum subject - even as he also obviously wants it to be about his disinformation regarding same.
whereas O basically wants the discussions to be about O personally and everyone else personally too especially those who disagree with or criticize O.
In other words O trolls constantly and in ways almost all members know to not do.
That is O's life's work.
---------------------------------------
O was 'badly damaged' (because of his fragile delicate nature) in a recent exchange in this forum a few days ago).
But instead of then getting himself muted by chess.com for a third recent time ..
(desperately and pathetically needing to go 'far over the top' in retorting)
this time he instead averted that and simply took a break for a few days.
Something he needs to learn to do regularly.
Something fester told him to do.
@12742
"blame tromp's data" ++ No, I do not blame the data.
Tromp found (4.82 +- 0.03) * 10^44 legal positions, but as the 3 random samples show the vast majority of those legal positions have multiple promotions from both sides and thus cannot result from optimal play by both sides
Right. Silly me, I was thinking promotions to queens and knights are a perfectly normal aspect of chess (with large numbers of multiple promotions in the tiny less than 10^7 games master chess dataset) and often optimal (proponent ) or legal (opponent) regardless of any previous promotions. But I now see you have taken the tygxc-logical move to generalize bishops and rooks to queens and knights.
Masterful!