Elroch you're never going to convince me that tablebasing while skipping castling and en passant 'isn't weak'.
So suggest - don't try.
Except you might convince somebody else. Or perhaps several agree with you.
Yes - you might know ten times as much about statistics as everybody here combined - and I mean that.
But skipping castling en passant and castling is Weak.
Skipping the 50 move rule and 3 fold repetition is somewhat Weak but much less so.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Aug 27, 2024
0
#12502
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
playerafar wrote:
The length of time its taking to tablebase 8 pieces (not even with castling and en passant included) indicates that 10 pieces will not be tablebased by the year 2100.
I don't know where you got that from but it doesn't make sense to me. It might require 10,000 times the compute and storage of the 8 piece tablebase. Moore's law (mostly by parallelism - tablebase construction is eminently suited to independent parallel computation because of the way that you have a separate tablebase for each combination of material, connected to each other by captures and promotions).
So it is reasonable to expect one move more each 15 years (if anyone is sufficiently motivated) until Moore's law breaks down for both storage and parallel computation (which is very similar to the law for "cost per compute").
Not even 'weakly tablebased' - which 7 pieces is.
There's no such thing. A tablebase is a strong solution of every position it contains.
To solve 10 pieces by 2100 - a major jump in 'ops per second' is needed for the computers.
No. If current trends continue, 2060 should suffice. The ratio of the number of positions per step is less than 100 and falling with each step.
Now T might now try to spam and claim ops per second 'doesn't matter' and that its 'nodes per second' which will further reveal his crass illogic.
The term 'quantum computers' is not going to 'get around that' either.
Quantum computing could get round it, but no-one has even sketched out how it could be done, and there is no strong reason to believe it will be possible. The present story of quantum computing is one of finding great difficulty scaling up, for fundamental physical reasons. Quantum computers are very different to normal computers.
It's worth remembering that technologies do reach road blocks they cannot surpass. The PC I bought over 10 years ago had an i5-3570k overclocked to 4.4 GHz. These days typical clock speeds on processors on turbo boost are similar (my laptop boosts to 4.6GHz), with the very fastest reaching 6.2 GHz (record liquid nitrogen overclocking is 8.2 GHz). The processors are much faster, but this is a consequence of more advanced design, partly more transistors (Intel don't provide this info any more, but indirect information suggests perhaps 10 billion transistors to the 3570k's 1.4 billion - about 100 million per square millimeter. Intel's most powerful processor is estimated to have 26 billion, with 24 cores to mine's 10).
Bottom line, I would expect an approximation to Moore's law to continue for parallel computing for a while, but the speed will tail off. Every new generation requires more expensive factories, with the current costing about $10 billion before you make the first CPU.
If it continued to 2100, our descendants could see a 12 or 13 piece tablebase.
Note: this graph only goes up to 2020. These days, the fastest progress is on increasingly parallel AI chips. The record is now 4 trillion transistors on a chip (about 80 times the largest CPU in 2020, but a different type of beast).
Moore's law is a scam. Classical computer capability is starting to level off. You can't keep compressing processor components beyond a certain amount. I doubt we'll get beyond 10 piece tablebases.
NOT U AGAIN /j
Aug 27, 2024
0
#12504
playerafar wrote:
Elroch you're never going to convince me that tablebasing while skipping castling and en passant 'isn't weak'.
So suggest - don't try.
Wake up! I just posted a position from a tablebase with en passant being possible and told you so.
Neither of those rules is expensive to include.
Also "weak" is a bad word to use. It is non-standard, it has a standard meaning in the solving of chess, and it is neither easy to guess what it means nor, IMHO, at all good as a choice of word. Far better to refer to any specific deficiency of a specific tablebase explicitly, which you have not. If you want me to do it for you, Syzygy does not deal with castling rights. Not a design decision I would have made, but there it is.
If you want a position with 7 pieces that deals with e.p. correctly, here you go:
https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=3qkb2/8/8/8/4Pp2/8/8/3QK3_b_-_e3_0_1
Aug 27, 2024
0
#12505
yeah weak refers to a specific type of incompleteness, while you are just positing incompleteness itself
Aug 27, 2024
0
#12506
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
yeah weak refers to a specific type of incompleteness, while you are just positing incompleteness itself
I prefer to use 'weak' in a common sense of the word - instead of as jargon.
Yes - scientific terminology has its place. Must be.
But - the fact that 'a tablebase' happened to include en passant (but not castling) does not contradict what I'm saying.
Which is that tablebases that don't include both en passant and castling as they try to progress from 7 pieces to 8 pieces and 9 and 10 and so on are Weak.
The fact they 'didn't bother' is no excuse.
Castling and en passant are just too basic to the game to be excluded or 'not bothered with'.
----------------------------------------
Yes - you each know more math than the math than I have both forgotten and remember but you're not going to convince me that such 'skipping' table bases are Strong.
They're not Strong. So they're weak.
We could waste a lot of energy. But that's unlikely.
----------------------------
I think you both understand the logic I'm getting at.
But I'm not the T-person nor the O-person.
Which means I don't need for such points to be my 'life's work' nor to personalize it.
You don't either. Right?
That's a question. A friendly one.
But no need to answer. Questions aren't thunder.
And the disagreement is minor - that's if it exists at all.
Aug 27, 2024
0
#12507
Jeez. I JUST TWICE POINTED OUT THAT Syzygy DEALS WITH EN PASSANT COMPLETELY AND GAVE EXAMPLES.
You seem to be trying to merit a one letter abbreviation.
Aug 27, 2024
0
#12508
Elroch wrote:
Jeez. I JUST TWICE POINTED OUT THAT Syzygy DEALS WITH EN PASSANT COMPLETELY AND GAVE EXAMPLES.
You seem to be trying to merit a one letter abbreviation.
And you just told me it skips castling. By omission.
Permit me to be right.
Lol!
Put on a happy face Elroch.
Life is short.
You wouldn't be bored to tears if you were right 100% of the time?
Well maybe not. That could be Interesting.
But please remember - you're not the T-person nor the O-person.
Which means you don't need to be 'right'.
Right?
Aug 27, 2024
0
#12509
I want to repeat the joke I just told in your forum E.
An article on a search page I just brought up stated that one third of persons aged 85 have some dementia.
But on the the same page another article stated that the rate of dementia for seniors doubles every five years.
Going by the two articles that would mean:
At age 90 two thirds of seniors would have some dementia.
And at age 95 133% of seniors would be demented at least somewhat.
133%. Whaatt??
Hey Kool! 133%! Far out! Gnarly! Copacabana!
prediction with 60% confidence - Elroch will 'apply' ... that's right.
Lets see if the 60 'comes in'.
playerafar wrote:
I want to repeat the joke I just told in your forum E.
An article on a search page I just brought up stated that one third of persons aged 85 have some dementia.
But on the the same page another article stated that the rate of dementia for seniors doubles every five years.
Going by the two articles that would mean:
At age 90 two thirds of seniors would have some dementia.
And at age 95 133% of seniors would be demented at least somewhat.
133%. Whaatt??
Hey Kool! 133%! Far out! Gnarly! Copacabana!
never speak again
Aug 27, 2024
0
#12512
Elroch wrote:
Jeez. I JUST TWICE POINTED OUT THAT Syzygy DEALS WITH EN PASSANT COMPLETELY AND GAVE EXAMPLES.
You seem to be trying to merit a one letter abbreviation.
P: Not even 'weakly tablebased' - which 7 pieces is.
E: There's no such thing. A tablebase is a strong solution of every position it contains.
I'd say P would have been correct had he meant by "weakly tablebased" providing a weak solution of every position it contains. He was responding to @tygxc who talks only of solving versions of chess that include 50M/3R positions because he thinks basic rules chess is insoluble.
P has since made it plain that he didn't mean that but intends (like a certain absent friend) to avoid jargon (meaning invent his own terms without any necessity of definition so that everyone can understand them).
E is definitely incorrect in that context. Syzygy provides a weak solution of of every position it contains under competition rules. It provides a strong solution of virtually no positions it covers that are not already mate or dead under competition rules, though it does provide a strong solution of every position it contains under basic rules.
It's also a pretty safe bet that no tablebase (not even for KRvK) that provides a strong solution of every position it contains under competition rules will be produced by 2100, if only because nobody will attempt it.
Aug 28, 2024
0
#12513
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
for some side fun ?...& since Goldbach was brought up ?...solve:
x^y = y^x
where x ≠ y...nor the 2,4 pair...nor non-integers
good luck all u math olympians !
assign: y = nx
do hobuncha manipulatives & u end up here:
x = n-1√n
y = n-1√n^n
then: pick any natural # ur charming little ♥ so desires...and x^y = y^x works !
****
now...try: ∞ (lol !)
Nobody appears to have corrected this so far, so I'll give you a clue.
Aug 28, 2024
0
#12514
People 'using the jargon' can ever convince others that skipping castling or en passant or both is Ever 'strongly solving'?
There's a thing called 'friendly disagreement' - with neither side spamming and both sides having a reasonable position ...
that's in intense contrast with 'T' and 'O'.
So if 'disagreement' is 'essential' to healthy discussion - friendly disagreement Can Do. But maybe its only going to be 'Could Do.'
I had a 'friendly disagreement' with Dio several days ago about something concerning 'luck in chess'.
Its over.
-----------------------------
Conclusion: neither side will budge a millimeter but the friendly disagreement appears to be about the semantics of 'luck' and 'in' and 'chess'.
A slight improvement would have occurred if the topic had been set up as 'chess has luck' ... 'has' instead of 'in'. But the semantics issues of what 'chess' means and what 'luck' means would still have continued.
Why mention here? Because I think that topic is relevant.
The whole forum doesn't have to just be about 'exposing and refuting T' (which constantly goes on and good thing)
-------------------------------
Regarding weak and strong and weakly and strongly I maintain that the usage of those terms is better if their common meanings are used.
I believe it'll continue to be in friendly disagreement with those who maintain that the usage should be jargon-usage.
Perhaps better would have been if whoever setting up the terms had used the words 'purely' and 'imperfectly'. Much better.
Then the terms not only become better - then they lead better into 'scalar and generic'. Instead of 'binary and technical'.
Aug 28, 2024
0
#12515
playerafar wrote:
People 'using the jargon' can ever convince others that skipping castling or en passant or both is Ever 'strongly solving'?
There's a thing called 'friendly disagreement' - with neither side spamming and both sides having a reasonable position ...
...
As Elroch pointed out, tablebases don't skip e.p. They don't address positions with castling, just as they don't at present address 12 man or 32 man positions. That shouldn't be a bar to persuading people that they strongly solve the positions they do address so long as it's true.
In fact it's not true under competition rules but it is true under basic rules. And it is true that they weakly solve the positions they address under competition rules; there should be no bar to persuading people of that either.
It does require that people understand what you're trying to persuade them of. That is they need to learn the jargon. It's there to avoid people talking at cross purposes.
If you have a conversation where each side means different things by the words in use then all you are likely to finish up with is a disagreement (friendly or otherwise).
You later refer to the common meanings of the terms "weakly" and "strongly". There are no commonly agreed meanings to those terms in this context apart from what you refer to as the jargon.
Aug 28, 2024
0
#12516
Martin - politely and in a friendly way - you seem to be ignoring castling.
People don't have to have math and science credentials to know that castling is basic to the game.
Aug 28, 2024
0
#12517
No I'm not. Nor am I ignoring 12 man or 32 man positions.
I'm not claiming that any of the tablebases so far is either a weak or a strong solution of either basic rules or competition rules chess, I'm talking only about whether they are weak or strong solutions of the positions they address.
Further tablebases can in principle, and in some cases in practice, be produced to cover both positions with more men and positions with castling rights and even positions with repetitions under art 9.2.3 under competition rules (though not in practice in that case, I would say).
Aug 28, 2024
0
#12518
Martin you once asked me about what terms I suggest.
Better might be terms like 'purely' and 'imperfectly'.
Generic terms.
Yes we could table tennis about even the word 'solved' and what that does or should mean.
That table tennis would go nowhere.
To me - 'solved' implies strength. Not 'weak'.
Is it 'about me' though? I say no.
Its about presenting things generically.
I don't say I have all the answers.
----------------------------
Idea: how difficult would it be to make an estimate of the total number of checkmate positions in chess?
Would that number be much less than the 4 x 10^44 number?
Yes. But by how much?
If that number is determined - then the number of mate in one positions would soon be known too.
-----------------------------------------
Why do I mention?
Because various members were talking about the significance of positions being 'mate in x or less moves available'.
As defining a win.
You could also define by 'mate in minimum x moves even with helpmate moves'
Point: Maybe that's a better angle than tablebasing.
Although its not completely exclusive to tablebasing.
Aug 28, 2024
0
#12519
Martin you once asked me about what terms I suggest.Better might be terms like 'purely' and 'imperfectly'.Generic terms.Yes we could table tennis about even the word 'solved' and what that does or should mean.That table tennis would go nowhere.To me - 'solved' implies strength. Not 'weak'.
Why invent your own terms when people investigating the topic have already produced standard terms. Nobody is going to understand what you're talking about. How long do you want the thread to last?
Aug 28, 2024
0
#12520
"I'm not claiming that any of the tablebases so far is either a waek or a strong solution of either basic rules or competition rules chess,"
Good for you Martin.
And I'm suggesting that neither 'strong' nor 'weak' are good terms for classifying solutions.
How did 'weak' ever get in there?
Probably because 'strong' got in first and then 'weak' got in as its opposite.
The dubious nature of that terminology increases when 'ultra-weakly' then gets in there too.
Then it might occur to some that the set of different 'degrees' of thoroughness of solving might begin to become a big set.
That such 'degree of solving' is beginning to look scalar instead of binary.
@Elroch
Tablebases aren't including castling and en passant - so they're weak.
Both of these are cheap inclusions.
And what is this? (see that move at the top right?) Click to enlarge.