Yes, but the human mind can't retain all the info
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
@12964
"Capablanca was using the word imprecisely too, as a chess player, not a mathematician."
++ Capablanca studied engineering at Columbia University,
but dropped out to become a professional chess player.
Lasker, a PhD. in mathematics, and Steinitz also a mathematician wrote essentially the same.
"There is no empirical evidence to support inferiority of these moves."
++ There is. See Figure 5b and Figure 31 of this Scientific paper. There was no human input but the Laws of Chess. There were 3-4 training seeds of 1,000,000 training steps.
"Chess is almost all about playing moves in positions which are NOT amenable to rigorous calculation" ++ Playing chess is about selecting one move among the legal moves,
using logic when possible and calculation when unavoidable.
Analysing chess is about selecting the reasonable moves among the legal moves.
"when proving a mate in 2 problem (surely stupendously easier than solving chess) is correct, how many of the opponents legal responses to the first move can you ignore?"
++ All of them. Solving a mate in 2 problem is about understanding the idea in the position, not about calculating. There are competitions in problem solving.
One of the best at that is John Nunn, Ph.D. in mathematics.
Java wrote:
nerds 😂
We're all nerds here, by default. Being a chess player automatically makes you a nerd. 
Jun 26, 2024
0
#12665
tygxc wrote:
@12964
"Capablanca was using the word imprecisely too, as a chess player, not a mathematician."
++ Capablanca studied engineering at Columbia University,
Engineering is a pragmatic discipline. And engineering sometimes fails. The aim is to make this rare.
but dropped out to become a professional chess player.
Which he was undoubtedly better at. Capablanca was a superb player.
Lasker, a PhD. in mathematics, and Steinitz also a mathematician wrote essentially the same.
No, I don't believe that Steinitz (who studied just 2 years of University mathematics in the 19th century) or Lasker (who was an accomplished mathematician who contributed a little to the body of mathematical knowledge) ever said anything like you claim. Where is your reference?
Here is a quote from Lasker, revealing a shared aesthetic with my own (as a lesser mathematician who reached around 1 kyu at go in a brief couple of years of enthusiasm - ended to save time and energy!
Jun 26, 2024
0
#12666
tygxc wrote:
@12964
"Capablanca was using the word imprecisely too, as a chess player, not a mathematician."
++ Capablanca studied engineering at Columbia University,
but dropped out to become a professional chess player.
engineering and mathematics are so completely different lmfao, beyond a basic highschool education the two share almost no characteristics. you not knowing that fits your complete lack of mathematics education.Lasker, a PhD. in mathematics, and Steinitz also a mathematician wrote essentially the same.
they didnt. as demonstrated by Elroch. absolutely hilarious that you try to bring mathematicians into this, knowing that mathematicians looked at your arguments and told me to stop wasting their time with delusional people.
"There is no empirical evidence to support inferiority of these moves."
++ There is. See Figure 5b and Figure 31 of this Scientific paper. There was no human input but the Laws of Chess. There were 3-4 training seeds of 1,000,000 training steps.
that's statistical approximation, not true evidence.
"Chess is almost all about playing moves in positions which are NOT amenable to rigorous calculation" ++ Playing chess is about selecting one move among the legal moves,
using logic when possible and calculation when unavoidable.
Analysing chess is about selecting the reasonable moves among the legal moves.
reasonable is subjective and not logical, you contradict yourself (as per usual)
"when proving a mate in 2 problem (surely stupendously easier than solving chess) is correct, how many of the opponents legal responses to the first move can you ignore?"
++ All of them. Solving a mate in 2 problem is about understanding the idea in the position, not about calculating.
so you are fine with missing every problem in existence because you dont account for opponents moves? just because your intuition understands the problem doesnt mean that it didnt account for opponetnts moves to get there.
Jun 26, 2024
0
#12667
Just think how far tech has come in the last 100 years compared to the last thousands its exponential we cant even comprehend the kinds of things they might be able to do 1000 years from now so hard for me to think we cant even train the bots too see horizon effect yet imagine when someone revolutionizes processors for the 100th time after we have already died made of some rare yet undiscovered element.
@12973
The first real computer was used in the Manhattan Project 80 years ago.
Now quantum computers already are commercially available.
80 years from now they will probably be able to strongly solve Chess to a 32-men table base by retrograde analysis.
Jun 26, 2024
0
#12669
tygxc you do realize that quantum computers do not just provide a simple blanket computing boost right (note that I know extremely little about quantum computing compared to math/game theory so i could be completely wrong about how quantum computing would effect chess)
quantum computing's main strengths is that it can let quantum physics do the work of large modular calculations/other specified programs. however from what i could look up chess does not follow any of these advantageous programs. it only seems to be useful in table base recognition and collection
We're all nerds here, by default. Being a chess player automatically makes you a nerd.
gratefully accepted !...just wish others would could should.
riiiiiiiiiiight...uh-huh...u just couldnt make 1 dan.
80 years from now they will probably be able to strongly solve Chess to a 32-men table base by retrograde analysis.
80 ??...more like 10-20. see ?...were viewing ram & rom thru OUR lens (not AI's). the smartest ppl (like tygex, elrock, opti, and of course Lukey) have a built-in 2.5mm gigs stationed up there that can do humpteen dumpteen FLOPS. and trust me...that eggs moving. sad part ?...as they age ?...theyre infoloss/hr is coming in (and obviously going out lol !) at abt 50%. good part ?...their/our rom is pretty much limitless. if not ?...then wed probably kill ourselves once we reached max cap lol !
thats my dnload. howbout u ?
Jun 26, 2024
0
#12673
tygxc wrote:
"Chess is almost all about playing moves in positions which are NOT amenable to rigorous calculation" ++ Playing chess is about selecting one move among the legal moves,
using logic when possible and calculation when unavoidable.
Again, you abuse the word "logic" by using it for something completely different. There is zero logic in what you refer to. What you refer to is identifying some general condition and using that to identify the move. For example, "it is really great to win a queen, so I will play the move that captures a queen". There is no logic relating the condition to the desired result - in truth the relationship is an empirically based on many examples, and any such criterion you can state will be WRONG on occasion. Your "logic" will instruct you to blunder, as it surely does in your own chess games on occasion.
Logic is appropriately applied in examples like this: "my move draws if I can draw each of the positions reachable by a legal response to my move by my opponent. So I need to verify that I am not losing in any of those positions". In competitive chess, such thoroughness is usually impractical.
This is the forward analysis stage of constructing a weak solution (comprised of two explicit strategies, which are separate apart from sharing proven facts - if a position is verified drawing, its analog with players swapped also is).
ohh !...& s/t else. Left-Handed ppl store way more info than RH'ers. cuz their corpus callosum (white matter) in just bigger ! so...explains alot (nanananabooboo lol !). also they say reminiscence bump makes chessplayers (20% LH'ed) best in their 20's.
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
ohh !...& s/t else. Left-Handed ppl store way more info than RH'ers. cuz their corpus callosum (white matter) in just bigger ! so...explains alot (nanananabooboo lol !). also reminiscence bump makes chessplayers (20% LH'ed) best in their 20's.
Thanks for the compliment, much appreciated.
Jun 26, 2024
0
#12677
tygxc wrote:
@12973
The first real computer was used in the Manhattan Project 80 years ago.
Now quantum computers already are commercially available.
80 years from now they will probably be able to strongly solve Chess to a 32-men table base by retrograde analysis.
80 years from now?
That's a lot for tygxc.
But 80 trillion years from now might still be optimistic.
If some kind of computer is developed that uses molecules as computer circuits somehow ... perhaps that would reduce computing time to do whatever to a billionth of whatever it was.
But even with that - the numbers would be daunting.
Putting it mildly.
--------------------------
Why?
Everytime a piece is added to a tablebase the number of possible positions is multiplied by about 500.
Ten possible types of piece to be added and over 50 squares available for each added piece. Yes its an approximation.
So adding six pieces would multiply the number of possible positions by over 25,000 cubed.
That's over ten trillion.
So just getting from eight pieces to 14 pieces more than knocks out a speedup factor of a billion -
That 'molecular computer' would have to do better ...
Thanks for the compliment, much appreciated.
I always found that if i looked HARD ENUF i could find the smallest of things in common w/ A/O...even u.
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
Thanks for the compliment, much appreciated.
I always found that if i looked HARD ENUF i could find the smallest of things in common w/ A/O...even u.
Well, yes, we have innumerable things in common going down to the cellular level. But I would be remiss not to point out that you weren't looking for things in common in this case, you were looking to divide...so I am not sure the back patting is warranted.
Jun 26, 2024
0
#12680
We need some more solid and useful results in quantum computing before we venture to say it's going to solve chess anytime soon. It can't even crack an RSA algorithm, and operationalizing chess into a quantum algorithm will be no easy task - it'll need to be a very large algorithm, you're going to need alot of qubits and quantum gates involved... it's extremely speculative at this point to say this will happen anytime soon, or even that it will eventually happen.
You misunderstood what he meant by his first quote. It referred to my observation that proving a first move for white (at least) draws is equivalent to proving none of the 20 black replies wins for black. That is a logical equivalence, one of the two basic steps in the construction of a proof tree.
oh my b. That is a logical equivalence, of course the total amount of replies proven would need to be the total in order to be true equivalence (if vs iff)