Multiple personalities = Multiple points
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Jan 4, 2025
0
#13303
Looks like the O-guy is describing himself again. Angry and not having a clue about proof.
And thinking its about 'persuasion' rather than people thinking and finding out for themselves and making their own choices. 'you have to'. He has no authority but never realizes it.
Wait - what happened? I read his post. Well it was short but as usual with his posts - wrong.
As for the other two posters (not Dio) - yes - multiple points would be too much for them.
No surprise there.
As O gets more and more outclassed - he gets more and more desperate - first trying to insist he's 'more intelligent' as a defenisive tactic that never works - then reminded he isn't - then gets angrier and angrier and more and more projecting and eventually gets himself muted. Again.
pp
Optimissed wrote:
No-one is interested in your angry vibes.
Clearly you are. Perhaps you should walk the talk and just ignore me if you are being truthful (minus the part where you pretend to speak for everyone, of course).
Jan 4, 2025
0
#13306
Optimissed wrote:
Discussion about tofu is it?
Which brings us to the key question - will tofu be solved in our lifetimes?
Jan 4, 2025
0
#13308
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Discussion about tofu is it?
Which brings us to the key question - will tofu be solved in our lifetimes?
Will Tik Tok have the answers? Tick-Tock.
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Discussion about tofu is it?
Which brings us to the key question - will tofu be solved in our lifetimes?
Tofu I understand. People tolerating the texture, I do not.
Jan 6, 2025
0
#13310
Elroch wrote:
Another key extension to game theory is having more than 2 players. A trivial result is that every non-zero sum game with N players is equivalent to a zero sum game with N+1 players.
But the majority of games with more than 2 players are awkward to deal with unless co-operation is banned, because they can be transformed into games with 2 players in multiple ways - the ways in which the players can team up.
N-player games (Britannica)
A lot of mathematical and math-related subjects have come up during the course of this forum with over 16,000 posts ...
Fourier analysis was mentioned. And work by other mathematicians.
Set theory and game theory have both come up.
And the name ... Zermelo.
Ernst Zermelo. German mathematician.
But his surname is often spelled without the r.
Anyway turns out he was great in both set theory and game theory.
Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms are now the most commonly used system for axiomatic set theory.
But Zermelo also stated at least one thereom in game theory too -
In game theory, Zermelo's theorem is a theorem about finite two-person games of perfect information in which the players move alternately.
And obviously chess is a game of perfect information.
Because both players can see the entire position. Unlike in poker.
Some will want to argue about the meaning of the word 'perfect'.
Failing to realize that the point is what 'perfect' refers to in the context.
------------------------
"In 1912, during the Fifth International Congress of Mathematicians in Cambridge, Ernst Zermelo gave two talks. The first one covered axiomatic and genetic methods in the foundation of mathematical disciplines, and the second speech was on the game of chess."
"It is generally agreed that the first formal theorem in the theory of games was proved by E. Zermelo1 in an article on Chess appearing in German in 1913"
Zermelo was very interested in chess.
'his theorem has been applied mostly to the game chess'
but - in the same article:
"Zermelo's algorithm is a cornerstone algorithm in game-theory; however, it can also be applied in areas outside of finite games. Apart from chess, Zermelo's theorem is applied across all areas of computer science. In particular, it is applied in model checking and value interaction"
------------------------
Do we have to accept Zermelo's theorem in game theory?
There's a difference between 'accepting' and 'applying' although the latter is a strong argument for the former.
It also seems that Zermelo linked his work in set theory to his game theory too.
Jan 7, 2025
0
#13311
Elroch wrote:
@MARattigan, I accept that I was wrong to say that you misrepresented Russell, in that in his system the statement had no meaning. That doesn't mean he thought it could not have a meaning - and doubtless he accepted this was the case once ZF came along.
I think "doubtless" is doubtful.
ZF came along, as you put it, in 1922, five years before the second edition of PM. As I mentioned, I've only browsed the second edition, but it seems to me that his theory of types remains basically intact (unless you can find something to the contrary - 2nd. edition).
In that case Russell's system is incompatible with ZF, because most of the latter's axiom schemae include statements which, in the intended interpretation, are not true according to Russell's interpretation, but rather, nonsense.
(In fact Z "came along" in 1908 before the first edition of PM and the same is true.)
I've read that after producing the second edition Russell confessed to being totally knackered and effectively retired from further considering the subject.
When you say, "once ZF came along", by the way, I believe, after the publication of PM it was more like London buses, except the destinations were not always consistent. The fact that ZFC has been settled on as a kind of standard is, I would say, somewhat arbitrary, which is why I earlier described it as "work in progress".
Jan 7, 2025
0
#13312
MARattigan wrote:
Elroch wrote:
@MARattigan, I accept that I was wrong to say that you misrepresented Russell, in that in his system the statement had no meaning. That doesn't mean he thought it could not have a meaning - and doubtless he accepted this was the case once ZF came along.
I think "doubtless" is doubtful.
ZF came along, as you put it, in 1922, five years before the second edition of PM. As I mentioned, I've only browsed the second edition, but it seems to me that his theory of types remains basically intact (unless you can find something to the contrary - 2nd. edition).
In that case Russell's system is incompatible with ZF, because most of the latter's axiom schemae include statements which, in the intended interpretation, are not true according to Russell's interpretation, but rather, nonsense.
(In fact Z "came along" in 1908 before the first edition of PM and the same is true.)
I've read that after producing the second edition Russell confessed to being totally knackered and effectively retired from further considering the subject.
When you say, "once ZF came along", by the way, I believe, after the publication of PM it was more like London buses, except the destinations were not always consistent. The fact that ZFC has been settled on as a kind of standard is, I would say, somewhat arbitrary, which is why I earlier described it as "work in progress".
'somewhat arbitrary' .... I'd kind of agree with that.
But in both set theory and game theory - (and game theory is a Very big thing nowadays - extending beyong 'games' apparently) - the work of Ernst Zermelo is considered very basic.
In set theory - the whole business of Russell's Paradox seems to have been based on the idea of allowing 'unlimited composition'.
Meaning as far as sets existing 'anything goes'.
That had to get that tidied up. It was decided that to have good set theory you couldn't allow any old sets as it were. Sets had to meet standards to be legitimate sets.
That seems to be the gist of it.
I'm using the word 'seems'. I'm not 'claiming'.
opti's back ...yay ! hi opti 
!
playerafar wrote:
33_blackblackblackberry wrote:
This thread is STILL going on???
The problem with Chess being "solved" is that, we can never figure out human intuition completely. We will never know what our opponents next inoptimal move would be. Even the most learned player could fall prey to a moment's dumb luck on the part of a lesser experienced player.
That aside, My main question was: do we CARE and WANT chess to be solved?
Some threads continue indefinitely. There is no reason that a thread should end arbitrarily.
This thread continues because the idea of it is basically relevant to the game.
And yet, you haven't even addressed the point that I made:
"The problem with Chess being "solved" is that, we can never figure out human intuition completely. We will never know what our opponents next inoptimal move would be. Even the most learned player could fall prey to a moment's dumb luck on the part of a lesser experienced player. That aside, My main question: do we CARE and WANT chess to be solved?"
It's a privately owned website. They can ban people if they want to.
ohh plz dont ban me...plz dont ban me...plz dont ban me (wait...better yet - put me outta my mizury...yee !)
Jan 8, 2025
0
#13318
mpaetz wrote:
Apparently a three month ban isn't enough for some people.
blackberry? ban?
Regarding mute as opposed to ban -
it appears the O-person's mute has been renewed.
But somehow Dio was muted too. Which should not have happened.
Oh, hey! It appears that I posted in this thread about 3 years ago! I completely forgot about it.
Seems like my sentiment has 58 thumbs up, 15 thumbs down, and a few other goofie emoticon reactions. Though, I'm going to guess that these numbers will fluctuate, now that I called attention to them. (The thumbs down is probably going to rise, mayhaps? lol)
Jan 8, 2025
0
#13320
33_blackblackblackberry wrote:
playerafar wrote:
33_blackblackblackberry wrote:
This thread is STILL going on???
The problem with Chess being "solved" is that, we can never figure out human intuition completely. We will never know what our opponents next inoptimal move would be. Even the most learned player could fall prey to a moment's dumb luck on the part of a lesser experienced player.
That aside, My main question was: do we CARE and WANT chess to be solved?
Some threads continue indefinitely. There is no reason that a thread should end arbitrarily.
This thread continues because the idea of it is basically relevant to the game.
And yet, you haven't even addressed the point that I made:
"The problem with Chess being "solved" is that, we can never figure out human intuition completely. We will never know what our opponents next inoptimal move would be. Even the most learned player could fall prey to a moment's dumb luck on the part of a lesser experienced player. That aside, My main question: do we CARE and WANT chess to be solved?"
'we'.
Everybody has a different take.
Nobody is subject to somebody else's question or 'point'.
Questions and whoever's 'point' don't have auras over them or light coming out of them.
But for some - they do seem to entertain that notion about their 'point' or question.
Nobody is even obligated to read whoever's post completely or at all.
Whether they're quoting the post or not.
Who has authority here? The chess.com staff.
I don't understand the point of this thread. What is this all about? Is the OP stating that it is already solved? I am too lazy to read all that again.
For an answer, chess can never be solved for the reason I mentioned in my previous post.
With many things - there are multiple points. Not just one.
'the' point is therefore often a misinterpretation.
In the case of this this thread - the word 'solved' has different meanings to different people - depending on what meaning or meanings they elect to assign.
Even if a common meaning were assigned - such as 'solved' meaning that the entire game and all its trillions of trillions of possible positions have been 'tablebased' - then opinions would still vary as to whether that will ever be done or not or can ever be done or not.
Since 'solved' has many meanings and all over the world every day millions of people try to 'solve' their chess games by trying to win them and since this is a chess website - well if you factor in those realities then the 'points' of this thread become more visible and understandable.
But even with that logic and realism available - the 'points' of any thread are subject to further interpretation.
People decide on their own what the 'points' of a thread are.
Some assign a single point that 'doesn't work' and they get muted or banned by the website.
I don't get the point of this post