Presumably he has no idea what an ultra-weak solution is and guesses it is a sort of flimsy version of a weak solution, which he also doesn't entirely understand (there he believes you can ignore some opponent moves without any analysis or valid reason).
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
@11927
"accepted and standard definitions of terms like weak solution"
++ Again:
Ultra-weakly solved means that the game-theoretic value of the initial position has been determined,
weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition,
and strongly solved is being used for a game for which such a strategy has been determined for all legal positions.
Games solved: Now and in the future
@11926
"ignore some opponent moves without any analysis" ++ Yes.
"or valid reason" ++ No.
I reject 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? without analysis, but with valid reason: gives up material for nothing in return.
@11923
"what is a reliable method of differentiating imperfect ICCF games that ended in a draw,
from perfect ICCF games that end in a draw?"
++ The context of the other games in the same competition.
In previous years there were a few decisive games, i.e. games with an odd number of errors. Thus in previous years we also had perfect games draws with 0 errors, but also imperfect draws with 2 errors. We cannot identify which games, but we can tell from the result.
Now we have 112 draws out of 112 games. It might be that a few, say 2 games are imperfect games with 2 errors. We cannot identify which.
However, there are several redundant paths from the initial position to a certain draw, so even if a few e.g. 2 games have to be removed, we still have part of a weak solution of Chess.
tygxc wrote:
@11926
"ignore some opponent moves without any analysis" ++ Yes.
"or valid reason" ++ No.
I reject 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? without analysis, but with valid reason: gives up material for nothing in return.
Even here, you know you are full of it. The responses are knight takes (suboptimal development square) and pawn takes (doubled pawn), so you are being purposefully disingenuous when you say " nothing in return"...because you know that saying "little in return" blows your argument.
@11934
"Why can't you identify which games are perfect?"
++ Because 2 ICCF WC finalists looked at them for months with twin servers of each 90 million positions per second and could not find any mistake.
"You mean some games contain mistakes but we're not able to find them?"
++ A few games of the ongoing ICCF WC finals might contain a pair of mistakes that cancel each other. Some games from previous ICCF WC finals are likely to contain a pair of mistakes that cancel each other. We cannot identify the games, nor the pair of mistakes, but from looking at the complete tournament especially the number of decisive games we can estimate the number of games with a pair of mistakes that cancel each other.
@11937
"the method was imperfect, so we can't assume the games are perfect"
++ In previous years there were decisive games, so the method was imperfect, and we can estimate how many of the draws had a pair of mistakes that cancelled each other.
No there are no decisive game, so we can assume all 112 draws are perfect.
We cannot rule out that a few of them are imperfect, but the majority of the 112 draws must be perfect.
@11938
"engines are not 4000 yet"
++ At 5 days average per move running on twin servers each 90 million positions per second and jockeyed by an ICCF WC finalist they now are.
@11941
"contradict"
++ No. We can assume all 112 draws are perfect, but we cannot rule out the possibility that a few of the 112 games, e.g. 2 contain a pair of mistakes that cancel each other.
Jun 30, 2024
0
#12791
tygxc wrote:
@11941
"contradict"
++ No. We can assume all 112 draws are perfect, but we cannot rule out the possibility that a few of the 112 games, e.g. 2 contain a pair of mistakes that cancel each other.
That is a perfect thing example of self-contradiction.
Jun 30, 2024
0
#12792
tygxc wrote:
@11937
"the method was imperfect, so we can't assume the games are perfect"
++ No there are no decisive game, so we can assume all 112 draws are perfect.
It is surprising you can't see how foolish this is. Especially since you contradicted it yourself.
Also the only roles of an assumption in a proof are:
- As an axiom
- To derive a falsehood, proving the assumption false
@11944
'Assume' was the word in the post replied to.
Observed fact: 112 ICCF WC Finals games out of 112 drawn.
How many of those are perfect games? Best answer: 112.
Can it be excluded 1 or 2 or 3 contain a pair of errors that cancel each other? No.
Jun 30, 2024
0
#12794
tygxc wrote:
@11944
'Assume' was the word in the post replied to.
Observed fact: 112 ICCF WC Finals games out of 112 drawn.
Observed fact, Karpov and Kasparov, two players with ratings more than 800 points less than optimal, had sequences of 17 and 14 draws. Either player would be crushed in almost every game by a current top engine. If you had seen that sequence of 17 draws and nothing else, you would say it is probably perfect, because you rely entirely on the results.
Note that engines are much more consistent, so even when they are a long way from optimal they don't have off days.
How many of those are perfect games? Best answer: 112.
No, that is a wrong answer. The correct answer is "don't know".
Can it be excluded 1 or 2 or 3 contain a pair of errors that cancel each other? No.
Your reasoning is to guess, then to claim that your guesses are authoritative based on circular reasoning from the thing you are claiming.
@11945
"Karpov and Kasparov"
++ were not as strong as engines, and engines are not as strong as ICCF WC finalist + engines
and they played 3 minutes/move, not 5 days/move
"sequences of 17 and 14 draws" ++ Here we have no sequence of 17 or 14, but 112.
Statistics on 112 are stronger than on 17.
"If you had seen that sequence of 17 draws"
++ But in the whole 1984-1985 match there were 8 decisive games and 40 draws.
If all ongoing 24 games would be decisive, then we need to reconsider.
"The correct answer is don't know"
++ That is the answer to everything by an agnostic. Will the Sun rise tomorrow? don't know!
Jun 30, 2024
0
#12796
LMFAO tygxc getting pointed out that he doesnt know what tf hes talking about:
"Will the Sun rise tomorrow? don't know!"
how about instead of acting like a clown you just admit you dont know what you are talking about.
a mathematical proof cannot have any such ambiguities.
Jun 30, 2024
0
#12797
"If all ongoing 24 games would be decisive, then we need to reconsider."
then by definition it isnt a proof. A solution to chess stands on its own regardless of context, because it is derived solely from axioms and the rules of the game.
Jun 30, 2024
0
#12798
tygxc wrote:
@11941
"contradict"
++ No. We can assume all 112 draws are perfect, but we cannot rule out the possibility that a few of the 112 games, e.g. 2 contain a pair of mistakes that cancel each other.
so you contradict yourself.
tygxc wrote:
@11945
"Karpov and Kasparov"
++ were not as strong as engines, and engines are not as strong as ICCF WC finalist + engines
and they played 3 minutes/move, not 5 days/move
"sequences of 17 and 14 draws" ++ Here we have no sequence of 17 or 14, but 112.
Statistics on 112 are stronger than on 17.
"If you had seen that sequence of 17 draws"
++ But in the whole 1984-1985 match there were 8 decisive games and 40 draws.
If all ongoing 24 games would be decisive, then we need to reconsider.
"The correct answer is don't know"
++ That is the answer to everything by an agnostic. Will the Sun rise tomorrow? don't know!
A chance certainly exists for the event that sun wouldn't rise tomorrow, alltho considering current scientific evidence and our past experience it's pretty low. Probability for those 112 games not being perfect is quite abit higher. Not sure what this comparison really showed us.
Jun 30, 2024
0
#12800
Kotshmot wrote:
tygxc wrote:
"The correct answer is don't know"
++ That is the answer to everything by an agnostic. Will the Sun rise tomorrow? don't know!
A chance certainly exists for the event that sun wouldn't rise tomorrow, alltho considering current scientific evidence and our past experience it's pretty low. Probability for those 112 games not being perfect is quite abit higher. Not sure what this comparison really showed us.
you have to take it from the perspective of someone who doesnt understand the certainty of a mathematical proof.
tygxc's understanding of proof is a merriam-webster definition (not an exaggeration, he has literally pulled up merriam-webster to try to justify his claims as "proof"), not of the mathematical rigor that a game solution requires.
in addition, tygxc refuses to even address the concept of mathematical proof. he doesnt question what we mean by mathematical rigor, he doesnt even try to call it wrong. this is extreme intellectual dishonesty on his end, which among other things has made us give up on trying to convince tygxc of anything, as tygxc refuses to even engage with anything outside his fantasy. we only remain on the forum to make sure that tygxc doesnt mislead people.
@tygxc has told us he believes 112 ICCF draws are an "ultra-weak solution of chess".
The absurdity of this claim is genuinely hilarious - a bunch of independent competitive games is no more a proof than it is a jam sandwich - so he really needs to answer my question.
Exactly how many of those games is the minimum to comprise an "ultra-weak solution"? Is it 1? 111? 47? What was it about the last game that made it an "ultra-weak solution"?
Unfortunately, @tygxc has no detectable ability to stop blundering in the same way when it is exposed. I am sure we have all seen chess players like that.