@13497
"an extra pawn sometimes wins and sometimes doesn't"
++ Close to the initial position an extra pawn wins. Of course some endgames with 1, 2, or even 3 extra pawns draw, but close to the initial position the side with the extra pawn can steer clear of those and convert the extra pawn.
Example:
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1072457
5 Qa4+ 'After this check Szabo might as well have resigned' - Bronstein
@13465
"translate any gain or loss in chess in terms of tempi"
++ That is a bold claim. Right now engines translate any gain or loss in terms of pawn units,
so with 3 tempi = 1 pawn you could translate in terms of tempi as well.
However, 1 d4 d5 2 c4 is a good move while it challenges the center, but does not develop any piece into play, so is loss of tempo for the benefit of influence on the center.
In some positions yes other positions no sometimes I get one extra tempi and I completely dominate the game other times it's a dead draw depending on the position tempo is the biggest influence other times is doesn't matter hence 3tempi =1 pawn is false sometimes tempi is greater than a pawn sometimes it is not
@13490
"[You] confuse weakly solving with a weak solution [as well as relying on your big red telephone to tell you the result of the starting position. ]"
++ Weakly solving leads to a weak solution.
The point is to hop from the initial position to other drawn positions so as to reach a certain draw:
But it's patently obvious to anyone other than yourself that if you're solving with a forward search you know neither whether the initial position or the positions to which you hop are drawn. You can only prove this by considering positions which don't appear in a final solution.
You're just confirming what I said.
7-men endgame table base draw, prior 3-fold repetition, or certain draw as judged by both ICCF WC finalists and their engines.
White wins are pitfalls for black, black wins are pitfalls for white.
Optimal play by both sides avoids the pitfalls.
"Blunder rates in the endgame generally increase with increasing think time" ++ Nonsense
Only if you want to ignore reality
"humans get weaker much faster" ++ No, humans are better at long term planning.
Presumably why they always lose. They must plan to from the start.
That is why the humans play the openings, not their engines in ICCF WC Finals.
That is also why humans agree on draws in positions with not the slightest hope of winning, while engines would stupidly play on until a 3-fold repetition or the 50-moves rule.
Troitsky was better than present engines at KNN vs. KP.
So am I.
"latest version of SF can't play 5 man chess perfectly"
++ But ICCF Finalist + twin servers 90 million positions/s during average 5 days can play 32 men perfectly. Troitsky analysed KNN vs. KP perfectly without any computer.
Er, that's five men. Count them on your fingers.
@13497
"an extra pawn sometimes wins and sometimes doesn't"
++ Close to the initial position an extra pawn wins.
Right, so this position wins for black. Funny about the GM stats.
No, close to the opening position, there is little doubt that sometimes an extra pawn does NOT win.
@13502
"so this position wins for black"
'It loses by force' - Fischer
'I could not find a way for white to equalise' - Kramnik
See also Figure 4d
See also TCEC.
There is good reason why it is no longer played in top competition, except for an occasional surprise.
Lol tygxc is getting allies slowly look at the other two threads
tygxc, instead of downvoting, why dont you just provide the proof that you claim exists?
for example, where's the mathematically rigorous proof that Ba6 loses?
@13501
"tell you the result of the starting position"
Here
(See you've resorted to composing your quotes yourself instead of just snipping them out of context.)
What's Here supposed to tell me? That an engine that can manage only 100% draws from some 5 piece positions (winning or drawing) can only manage 100% draws from the starting 32 piece position with the help of people 1000 ELO weaker? Am I supposed to be surprised, informed or what?
What's Here supposed to tell me? That an engine that can manage only 100% draws from some 5 piece positions (winning or drawing) can only manage 100% draws from the starting 32 piece position with the help of people 1000 ELO weaker? Am I supposed to be surprised, informed or what?
Oof. Savage ...
And yes, of course ICCF games are all likely to be draws. The competitors are almost certainly all using the same narrow pool of engines to analyze with ... Nobody has an advantage in playing strength.
What's Here supposed to tell me? That an engine that can manage only 100% draws from some 5 piece positions (winning or drawing) can only manage 100% draws from the starting 32 piece position with the help of people 1000 ELO weaker? Am I supposed to be surprised, informed or what?
Oof. Savage ...
And yes, of course ICCF games are all likely to be draws. The competitors are almost certainly all using the same narrow pool of engines to analyze with ... Nobody has an advantage in playing strength.
Thats part of the problem drawing ,winning ,losing cant really solve chess on its own lol t also makes sense that most computers will draw if they are going for only a draw /win tbh in chess sometimes to win you have to take risks that look like it weakens your position even tho it doesn't
for example, where's the mathematically rigorous proof that Ba6 loses?
wait a sec...why stop there ?? lets getta proof for this...lol !!
hmm
or this grand prix:
with black to move (having the tempo)...re: black hazza humongous lead...5 points to 2 points.
HMM
Lol tygxc is getting allies slowly look at the other two threads
only cuz ppl found a attackee after opti got opti'ed out. Ty challenges w/ thot provokers...and i TOTALLY support that. esp against talkers who dont do a/t except sit on tom thumb & philosophize.
Lol tygxc is getting allies slowly look at the other two threads
only cuz ppl found a attackee after opti got opti'ed out. Ty challenges w/ thot provokers...and i TOTALLY support that. esp against talkers who dont do a/t except sit on tom thumb & philosophize.
what from tygxc is thought provoking though? his entire platform is just a rejection of mathematical logic.
im genuinely curious at how tygxc could be in any way a challenge beyond how terrence howard is a challenge.
its just that he challenges ur common sense as u secretly push ur own away. thats a u problem not a Ty problem. yet ppl attack Ty. only cuz theyre frustrated-angry w/ themself for abandoning their own common sense.
@13490
"confuse weakly solving with a weak solution"
++ Weakly solving leads to a weak solution.
The point is to hop from the initial position to other drawn positions so as to reach a certain draw: 7-men endgame table base draw, prior 3-fold repetition, or certain draw as judged by both ICCF WC finalists and their engines.
White wins are pitfalls for black, black wins are pitfalls for white.
Optimal play by both sides avoids the pitfalls.
"Blunder rates in the endgame generally increase with increasing think time" ++ Nonsense
"humans get weaker much faster" ++ No, humans are better at long term planning.
That is why the humans play the openings, not their engines in ICCF WC Finals.
That is also why humans agree on draws in positions with not the slightest hope of winning, while engines would stupidly play on until a 3-fold repetition or the 50-moves rule.
Troitsky was better than present engines at KNN vs. KP.
"latest version of SF can't play 5 man chess perfectly"
++ But ICCF Finalist + twin servers 90 million positions/s during average 5 days can play 32 men perfectly. Troitsky analysed KNN vs. KP perfectly without any computer.