@13338
"a position that is proven not to be reachable in fewer than 57.5 moves"
++ 8 white rooks, 8 black rooks. Not relevant to weakly solving chess.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Jul 7, 2024
0
#13043
That is a perfectly reasonable guess. It is fair to say that is what you are able to do - make reasonable guesses.
If you would like to dispute that, please answer my long-standing request for you to identify an example of valid deduction in your reasoning.
@13334
"this variation is unbeatable which means everyone would play it "
++ There are several unbeatable variations that draw and for both sides,
so everyone has a choice as what to play and still draw.
@13340
"a perfectly reasonable guess"
++ No that is no guess, that is proven.
Both sides have underpromoted to rooks. The only reason to underpromote to a rook is to avoid a draw by stalemate. It cannot be optimal play for both sides to avoid a draw.
Jul 7, 2024
0
#13046
tygxc wrote:
@13340
"a perfectly reasonable guess"
++ No that is no guess, that is proven.
Both sides have underpromoted to rooks. The only reason to underpromote to a rook is to avoid a draw by stalemate. It cannot be optimal play for both sides to avoid a draw.
Yes, it can.
If chess is a draw, optimal play does not require either player to take the fastest draw available. It requires them to play moves that do not give the opponent a winning position.
@13343
There is no point in promoting to a rook instead of a queen and for both sides.
Jul 7, 2024
0
#13048
gotta love how tygxc focuses on the most fringe aspect of the argument possible in order to avoid confronting how fundamentally wrong his position is yet he STILL cant create a deductive argument.
Jul 7, 2024
0
#13049
You are attempting to obfuscate, @tygxc. My previous point stands, and your previous post stands corrected.
And if you think it is not possible for a drawing game to have both players promoting to rooks, consider the common situation where a promotion is correct, but the promoted piece will get captured whether it is a rook or a queen. Then observe that this can easily happen for both sides at different times.
@13346
You are the one obfuscating with an obviously irrelevant position.
My previous post stands and your post stands corrected.
Your position is not even a draw as you claim: black plays and white wins.
...Kxb8 Rc8+ Nxc8 Rxc8+ Bxc8 Rxc8+ Ka7 Rxa5+ Ba6 Rxa6#
"the promoted piece will get captured whether it is a rook or a queen"
++ If it is captured, then it is no longer on the board.
If it gets captured anyway, then there is no reason to prefer an underpromotion to rook.
Jul 7, 2024
0
#13051
Neither Tromp nor I claimed the position was a draw or the play was optimal.
It is an example of an extremely difficult class of chess problem - proof games with specified objectives. It is no closer to competitive chess than the game you posted from the Belgian championship where two players pre-arranged a draw and played out a very short stalemate.
Optimissed wrote:
Deslising wrote:
MEGACHE3SE thank God we have smart people like this user. Do you understand that algorithms are instructions and there is no independent thinking by AI. Also to solve chess you have to say this variation is unbeatable which means everyone would play it therefore chess is solved.
Joined 19 hours ago and claims Mega is "smart". Is this someone to believe? Is he smart enough to know Mega is smart? Mega isn't smart so there's negative evidence on that score.
Reareading, I may have misunderstood this post. I hadn't read round it, I already know Mega is pretty thick, it was a new account and I assumed it was made to support Mega.
An algorithm is an instruction or connected series of instructions. The comment seems, on reflection, to be written in a confused way, so I excuse myself if I misunderstood. Perhaps Deslising is pointing out that you ain't smart.
Apologies, shouldn't have commented but I've been working for days and days .... maybe three weeks and saw this and my general irritation at Elroch and his friends and all who support him came to the fore. Elroch would be a lot more ok if he was
1) Honest
2) Even handed and unbiassed
3) Didn't pretend to be an expert on things he knows nothing about.
The latter is one of my weaknesses but then I'm much more intelligent. Ooh did I say that? What a terrible thing for me to say. Back to work!!
Jul 7, 2024
0
#13053
ah yes, trying to claim that a random position wasnt optimal play when optimal play has nothing to do with the point of the position isnt obfuscation, LMFAO.
classic tygxc logic.
Jul 7, 2024
0
#13054
hey optimissed, i noticed how you are still not addressing the fact that my core arguments are literally verified by mathematicians.
@13348
"Neither Tromp nor I claimed the position was a draw or the play was optimal."
++ You claimed it was relevant to weakly solving Chess and it is not.
Jul 7, 2024
0
#13056
heres some of the core errors of tygxc with his previous post:
First error: Assuming proof from apparent lack of counterexample, especially when evidence is provided that a counterexample could exist. as a concrete counter example of a large move position has not been provided (well it technically has but tygxc is conflating terms of satisfaction), tygxc claims that his number is mathematically proven (in his original posts and others he claims these numbers he provides are mathematically proven by the arguments he makes). this is obviously a fallacy.
Second error: Assuming that unoptimal play is not relevant to weakly solving chess.
By definition a weak solution to chess will contain unoptimal play from one side as by definition a weak solution is an algorithm to deal with all opposition. in addition, as the counter example was pertaining to calculations, it is fully necessary to look at unoptimal moves outside of the solution because it is needed to determine which moves are optimal to begin with.
This thread is just about done. Tygxc repeating some flawed jibberish, megacheese and his literal mathematicians every once in a while, nerdy personal insults. Thats about it
Alexeivich94 wrote:
This thread is just about done. Tygxc repeating some flawed jibberish, megacheese and his literal mathematicians every once in a while, nerdy personal insults. Thats about it
This thread has been "done" since before page 100, as all solving chess threads are. The only reason people post here anymore is to debunk the crackpots that keep pretending reality is different somehow. Currently there are (10^1)-8 of them.
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
llama_l wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
llama_l wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
tygxc you still havent addressed how ive had mathematicians personally verify my rebuttals to your delusional solution methodology claims, and you still havent explained how quantum computing is supposed to overcome the hurdle of that we dont have enough atoms on the earth to store 10^44 chess positions.
We only need to store about 10^2 positions (enough for a single average length game) to super-duper-double-weakly solve chess. This is because all the other moves are clearly inferior. We can assume this is true because a 1700 rated player let his computer run for an hour while playing an ICCF game.
oh i forgot about that.
Also, we can ignore either all black moves or white moves because as long as the game ends as a draw we know it's perfect. So we can get it down to 10^1.3
Also, we don't need to store the last position, because by then the game is a draw and it's obvious.
We can use the same logic to realize we don't need to store the 2nd to last position either... all the way back to the starting position, which also doesn't need to be stored for obvious reasons.
So in fact, we don't have to story any positions to super-duper-weakly solve chess. In fact we don't even need rules to the game, since if there are no moves then the rules don't matter...
... so you see, not only does this solve chess, but all games.
The problem is we don't know if the draw is perfect and we don't know the amount of errors the computer made
Read the posts again. Specifically the absurd numbers and "super-duper-weakly solve chess" reference...
You might want to amend your serious reply 
.
@13322
"conclude that anything that has not happened in that small sample will never happen"
++ We have data bases with millions of grandmaster games and of thousands of ICCF correspondence games. There is also logic and deductive reasoning.
There is indeed. You will find examples of it in my posts and the posts of other mathematically competent posters, but a noticeable lack of it in yours. Possibly because you don't know what it is - I am still waiting for you to identify a specific examples of deductive reasoning in a post of yours (I had trouble finding one).As 10^38 = 3^80 3 non transposing branches per ply generate all chess positions in 40 moves.
Interestingly, John Tromp drew my attention to what he says is a proven counterexample to that, a position that is proven not to be reachable in fewer than 57.5 moves (the current record).
There is no guarantee that this is the most extreme such example - he hypothesised that there may be a position that cannot be reached in less than 100 moves.
While it would certainly be reasonable to hypothesise that this example can be avoided in the solution of chess, there is surely a vast number of other examples, and it may well be impossible to avoid them in a solution of chess.
[Note, I have to point out that the actual objective of the chess problem above is a position where the entire game can be deduce from the final position and the move count. This is not quite the same as the objective of a game with that minimum number of moves, but it is clear that there are many opportunities to waste moves (eg by moving a rook in two steps rather than one), so if the move count were not minimal, it is unlikely that the objective would be achieved. If a one move shorter game reaching the position existed, it would have to have no ways for either side ever to waste moves, a very unlikely criterion].
For more discussion see Chess Stack Exchange
and the problem database Tromp linked: