Don't do that - it's the only way to tell if he's read them.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
You said that my claim that chess can be solved in the future is incorrect but why exactly is that?
Technology continues to advance as you can see in the last couple of years. Why don't you think that computers will eventually be so powerful that chess can be solved? It's only because we are limited by current technology but many advancement weren't forseeable a couple of years ago. Why shouldn't this be the case for solving chess? Again the move space is not infinite.
Do you believe that chess can't be solved at all or do you think it is possible just not right now?
[Spam removed; DS]
Jul 4, 2024
0
#12985
tygxc wrote:
@13222
"@tygxc defines "position" as FEN-{move number,ply count} and then assumes his positions correspond 1-1 with nodes in the competition rules game tree and also in the ICCF game tree."
++ No. Your fingers just can't help typing that, can they? You carry on to confirm what I said.
Diagram = location of men on the board
Position = diagram + side to move + castling rights + en passant flag = FEN without move # or ply count. That is not my definition but that of 9.2.3
What do you expect them to put in 9.2.3? It's the "repetition of position" rule. You can't have a repetition of position that incorporates all the attributes of position, otherwise it wouldn't be a repetition but exactly the same position (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles). As 9.2.3 says
9.2.3 Positions are considered the same if and only if ... (my highlights).
(But obviously considered the same only for 9.2.)
Nevertheless you confirm exactly what I said about your understanding of the term "position" in competition rules chess.
Up to you, but then your meaning of "position" has no use in considering a forward searching solution of competition rules chess (or ICCF chess).
Node = position + history (takes care of 3-fold repetition and 50-moves rule) and provisional, heuristic evaluation, e.g. +0.33. That is not my definition but here.
Whether it's your definition or not, it's crap if it's meant to describe a node in the game tree under either basic or competition rules. These are determined by the attributes that are sufficient to define possible continuations.
Heuristic evaluation is completely irrelevant to that end as is most of history. Under basic rules the attributes you include in "position" contain enough history to fully determine possible forward continuations. Under competition rules only the attributes you include in "position" together with a full (unordered, with any repeats) list of 9.2.3 positions that have occurred since the last node with ply count 0 under 9.3/9.6.2 is sufficient (and a full list is not necessarily required).
generally 1 diagram = 2 positions, except when a king is in check
1 position = 0.5 node, except in up/down symmetrical positions
In flat contradiction to what you yourself have just said.
In fact you appear to have convinced yourself that your nodes under competition rules are in 1-1 correspondence with diagrams!!!!
Jul 4, 2024
0
#12986
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@13240
"whether the position after 1.e4 e5 is a White win, a draw or a Black win"
++ It is a draw. 21 ICCF WC Finals draws, 99.992% certain to be perfect games with optimal play by both sides prove it.
ah yes, proof by high probability, accepted in which mathematical journals???
Also note the fake confidence stat, based on proclamation and hype. We have no basis for certainty that 1. e4 c5 is not a double blunder, never mind the non-existence of a single double blunder anywhere in 106 competitive draws. The likelihood is greatly increased by the incestesting involved.
[Of course, there are other logical possibilities such that white has a forced win which is extremely difficult, deep and sharp, and which tends to be missed by all players below 4000 rating, Seems unlikely but certainly not proven false].
Jul 4, 2024
0
#12987
Philidorino wrote:
You said that my claim that chess can be solved in the future is incorrect but why exactly is that?
No, I disagreed with
The universe is constantly expanding while a chess board stays within its 64 squares. This alone is enough to abandon the theory that chess can never be solved.
Which is not disagreeing with a claim that chess can be solved in the future, only with the grounds for asserting it.
Technology continues to advance as you can see in the last couple of years. Why don't you think that computers will eventually be so powerful that chess can be solved? It's only because we are limited by current technology but many advancement weren't forseeable a couple of years ago. Why shouldn't this be the case for solving chess? Again the move space is not infinite.
Do you believe that chess can't be solved at all or do you think it is possible just not right now?
Doesn't appear to be on the cards right now, but quite conceivable that some future Andrew Wiles in combination with whizz technology could make the breakthrough. Depends more on the Putins of this world than the Wileses.
Jul 4, 2024
0
#12988
tygxc's 'silence' to questions is Deafening.
But the more he 'charges the windmills' so to speak -
the more the true nature (which he denies) of the windmills emerges as provided by thoughtful well-informed posters.
So in effect he is providing a kind of service.
Plus tygxc has already conceded that chess can't be solved with current technology.
Jul 4, 2024
0
#12989
playerafar wrote:
Plus tygxc has already conceded that chess can't be solved with current technology.
well remember that when tygxc makes a statement, he gets to use different definitions as everyone else in the world. so we cant really know what he means by that.
You know, its funny, when llama pointed out how the ICCF players are carried by computers, tygxc responded that llama should go participate in ICCF and find out himself.
Then, when I point out how every wikipedia article explicitly disagrees with tygxc and he responds that the articles are outdated, and i tell him to fix the wiki pages himself, he refuses to do so!
tygxc expects llama to make a multi-year commitment to a point, but then when asked to make an hour-long (at most) commitment for a much more relevant point, that not only is direct evidence for the argument but would also be the most prolific way to fulfill his goal of spreading the "truth", he just refuses to and acts like im being unreasonable.
Jul 4, 2024
0
#12990
playerafar wrote:
tygxc's 'silence' to questions is Deafening.
But the more he 'charges the windmills' so to speak -
the more the true nature (which he denies) of the windmills emerges as provided by thoughtful well-informed posters.
So in effect he is providing a kind of service.
Plus tygxc has already conceded that chess can't be solved with current technology.
As well as claiming (on an absurd basis) that it has already been solved AND claiming that solution is imminent AND claiming it will be solved in a few years.
No doubt, whatever happens, he will have been right at least once, even if at the wrong time.
Hi
Jul 4, 2024
0
#12992
Elroch wrote:
playerafar wrote:
tygxc's 'silence' to questions is Deafening.
But the more he 'charges the windmills' so to speak -
the more the true nature (which he denies) of the windmills emerges as provided by thoughtful well-informed posters.
So in effect he is providing a kind of service.
Plus tygxc has already conceded that chess can't be solved with current technology.
As well as claiming (on an absurd basis) that it has already been solved AND claiming that solution is imminent AND claiming it will be solved in a few years.
No doubt, whatever happens, he will have been right at least once, even if at the wrong time.
Hahahahahah.
tygxc has claimed 'the trifecta'?
In some places they call it a triactor - but it doesn't look possible though in this case.
Jul 4, 2024
0
#12993
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
playerafar wrote:
Plus tygxc has already conceded that chess can't be solved with current technology.
well remember that when tygxc makes a statement, he gets to use different definitions as everyone else in the world. so we cant really know what he means by that.
You know, its funny, when llama pointed out how the ICCF players are carried by computers, tygxc responded that llama should go participate in ICCF and find out himself.
Then, when I point out how every wikipedia article explicitly disagrees with tygxc and he responds that the articles are outdated, and i tell him to fix the wiki pages himself, he refuses to do so!
tygxc expects llama to make a multi-year commitment to a point, but then when asked to make an hour-long (at most) commitment for a much more relevant point, that not only is direct evidence for the argument but would also be the most prolific way to fulfill his goal of spreading the "truth", he just refuses to and acts like im being unreasonable.
"well remember that when tygxc makes a statement, he gets to use different definitions as everyone else in the world. so we cant really know what he means by that."
I believe that he means that chess can't be tablebased for 32 pieces or anywhere near that - with today's technology.
That's probably what he means although he might 'modify' that.
And its the only thing he's correct on?
Could be.
----------------------
MEGA - yes - 'acts'.
tygxc knows you're Not being unreasonable.
He's aware for two years that people aren't going to buy his sales pitches.
But he also appears to be aware he can't 'afford' any other concessions.
You know that old saying 'never concede a point' ...
He can't afford to concede any other points except that only one about chess cannot be solved with today's technology.
Even though all his other points are invalid apparently.
Jul 4, 2024
0
#12994
playerafar wrote:
tygxc knows you're Not being unreasonable.
He's aware for two years that people aren't going to buy his sales pitches.
But he's also appears to be aware he can't 'afford' any other concessions.
You know that old saying 'never concede a point' ...
He can't afford to concede any other points except that only one about chess cannot be solved with today's technology.
Even though all his other points are invalid apparently.
well he could alternatively just ghost the forum. I've done that once or twice on a different site a couple years ago when I was too weak to admit i was wrong. but a) you dont continue to spread misinformation. b) you can somewhat save face.
@13275
"We have no basis for certainty that 1. e4 c5 is not a double blunder"
++ We do have such basis.
So the initial position is a draw, you think 1 e4 is a black win, and 1 e4 c5 is a draw again: connects to certain drawn positions in average 39 moves in 17 ICCF WC Finals games.
But if 1 e4 were a black win, then 1 e4 e5 (21 draws in ICCF WC Finals games) and 1 e4 e6 (2 draws) must be double errors too.
What does your tentative black win look like? Maybe 1 e4 c6.
Then go back to the last time that got played in an ICCF WC Finals:
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=278961
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=278978
indicates it might rather be a white win instead of a black win.
Only 2 games, and at a time when there were still decisive games and thus errors.
Maybe 1 e4 c6 still draws, but it certainly does not win for black.
Even if 1 e4 were an error that loses for white, then we still have 54 perfect games drawing with 1 d4 and 28 perfect games drawing with 1 Nf3.
"The likelihood is greatly increased by the incestesting involved."
++ There is no incestesting. There are 17 different entities playing: 17 different ICCF WC finalists, from 11 countries, with different hardware, the 4 Russians somewhat worse because of the sanctions, different software, different tuning, different time per move: 2-10 days, different opening preferences, different chess culture.
"white has a forced win which is extremely difficult, deep and sharp"
++ What does your tentative white win look like?
On 1 e4 there are 5 lines of defense that all connect to certain draws in average 39 moves:
1 e4 e6, 1 e4 c5, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6.
On 1 d4 there are 5 lines of defense that all connect to certain draws in average 39 moves:
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6, 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4, 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6, 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6, 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6.
Even if 4 lines of defense were broken, there is a backup line of defense that holds the draw.
@13279
"it has already been solved"
++ Yes, for all practical purpose chess is ultra-weakly solved and is a draw.
"solution is imminent" ++ Yes, weakly solving is ongoing in the ICCF WC Finals:
112 draws out of 112 games. Redundant and thus fail safe, but not yet complete.
"it will be solved in a few years" ++ That was Sveshnikov's prediction. Weakly solving is now ongoing. The 17 ICCF WC finalists are the good assistants he asked for and their twin servers each 90 million positions/second are the modern computers he asked for, and they take 2 years instead of 5. The method is what he said: trace all openings to technical endgames.
As for strongly solving to a 32-men table base of all 10^44 legal positions I expect that before 2100 by quantum computers and retrograde analysis.
Jul 4, 2024
0
#12997
""We have no basis for certainty that 1. e4 c5 is not a double blunder"++ We do have such basis." where's the basis tygxc? thats what we are asking.
"But if 1 e4 is a black win, then 1 e4 e5 (21 draws in ICCF Finals games) and 1 e4 e6 (2 draws) must be double errors too.
What does your tentative black win look like? Maybe 1 e4 c6."
ah yes, proof by lack of apparent counter example. ive already pointed out how thats a fallacy, and cited sources.
Jul 4, 2024
0
#12998
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
playerafar wrote:
tygxc knows you're Not being unreasonable.
He's aware for two years that people aren't going to buy his sales pitches.
But he's also appears to be aware he can't 'afford' any other concessions.
You know that old saying 'never concede a point' ...
He can't afford to concede any other points except that only one about chess cannot be solved with today's technology.
Even though all his other points are invalid apparently.
well he could alternatively just ghost the forum. I've done that once or twice on a different site a couple years ago when I was too weak to admit i was wrong. but a) you dont continue to spread misinformation. b) you can somewhat save face.
not his plan.
But is anybody really buying tygxc's stuff?
Everyone knows that after e4 e5 then Ba6 isn't a good move.
tygxc trying So Hard to use a real truth to build a false one.
'chess will never be solved'
very possibly it never will be - although it is finite and therefore In Theory might be solved in whatever number of decades or millenia or trillions of years.
But for those getting paid to do tablebase projects on chess - well that is 'solved' for their wallets.
'Getting paid' is a kind of 'solution'.
Jul 4, 2024
0
#12999
tygxc why arent you addressing the core requests?
you dont have mathematical certainty unless you prove for each case. you ignore cases so by definition it isnt mathematical certainty.
its also hilarious how sveshnikov wasnt even talking about a weak solution to chess. tygxc for some reason thinks thats the case, even though there isnt evidence.
Exactly!
Note that I have cancelled out his down votes on several other posts, including yours.