Thank you, I was lazy to google that. Good that someone wasnt.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
deq
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
You see that is the thing. I do not have to google it. Thst why I can spot your BS so quickly.
I'm not sure what you mean and Im far less confident that you know
Unless you refer to what you were wrong about earlier as bs, thats all good
Feb 18, 2025
0
#14425
Optimissed wrote:
LOSTATCHESS wrote:
what the !@#$%^are you people talking about - please speak clearly on point in a forum debate about whatever it is you are talking about-- hate and trolls. and troll haters seem to go hand and hand here now
Due to appallingly weak moderation by Chess.com, which has been going on for many years. I know personally very many people who have left C.c due to their incompetence.
Those who have left entirely or comment no more in the forums, due to online trolling, to my knowledge include people in the medical profession, at least one nationally known U.S. politician, a Greek chess I.M. called "Pfren" ( can't spell his real name) who didn't get on with me at first although we became good friends. Many more too, including a lot of good people who don't like having their respectfully voiced opinions closed down by people such as we have to put up with in this thread.
Anecdotal evidence, my friend. I'm sure plenty of people from prestigious walks of life still comment in the forums, and some of them may even be among those who are presently trolling this thread and others like it.
Feb 18, 2025
0
#14426
Optimissed wrote:
shadowtanuki wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
LOSTATCHESS wrote:
what the !@#$%^are you people talking about - please speak clearly on point in a forum debate about whatever it is you are talking about-- hate and trolls. and troll haters seem to go hand and hand here now
Due to appallingly weak moderation by Chess.com, which has been going on for many years. I know personally very many people who have left C.c due to their incompetence.
Those who have left entirely or comment no more in the forums, due to online trolling, to my knowledge include people in the medical profession, at least one nationally known U.S. politician, a Greek chess I.M. called "Pfren" ( can't spell his real name) who didn't get on with me at first although we became good friends. Many more too, including a lot of good people who don't like having their respectfully voiced opinions closed down by people such as we have to put up with in this thread.
Anecdotal evidence, my friend. I'm sure plenty of people from prestigious walks of life still comment in the forums, and some of them may even be among those who are presently trolling this thread and others like it.
You've certainly changed your colours, in a reaction to those who were trying to make fun of you for agreeing with me. OK so I'll reply to you as I would to anyone.
ALL evidence is anecdotal. When it's highly confirmed and justified, it tends to appear as less anecdotal. Our trollish friends criticise evidence because they say "it's anecdotal". However, it's nothing more or less than rhetoric because they're totally unaware that their comments are not evidence, but anecdotal, unsound and poorly expressed opinion.
The people who use comments like that, which you are copying, are those who are trying to close YOU down. Become more aware or go under, with the rest.
In general, those people who have a life tend not to troll. A troll is basically a manipulative and authoritarian person, who is a coward. Lone trolls are never seen. They always work in groups because there is always a small minority with like minds, whom they attract.
Okay, if all evidence is anecdotal, then being anecdotal is no impediment to it being good evidence. Then those anecdotal, unsound, and poorly expressed opinions of our trollish friends are no worse than the best evidence.
There was something else I wanted to say, but I completely forgot what it was after I read your comment for the second time. Oh yeah, just because some nice people have left the site, that doesn't mean the blame rests on those with whom you happen to disagree with, whether your disagreement is with their motives or with their aims or with their methods or both.
Feb 18, 2025
0
#14427
We don't know enough about each other to really know who needs therapy and who doesn't. I'm sure some people here do, and for some people not even that would probably do any good lol
Objection your honor, hearsay.
Feb 18, 2025
0
#14429
Trying to argue a point by telling somebody at the time that he switched college majors isn't 'respectful'.
Its 'talking down' but the person doing so (not I) never cleans up his act and then tries to blame somebody else. Constantly. Year in year out.
He's very very poor at handling disagreement. Disagreement with him.
Should we care? I say - not exactly. I like ... 'interfere'.
Such behaviour gets interfered with - efficiently.
------------------------
Feb 18, 2025
0
#14430
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
playerafar wrote:
Does that 'yes' answer mean that Stockfish is 'AI'?
AI in the general sense has been around for a long time.
One could say any operating computer and its software is 'AI'.
So Stockfish software inside a computer is 'AI' in that sense.
But what about AI in the more recent sense?
Things like chatgpt and copilot?
Stockfish is in that group?
You can have a conversation with Stockfish like you would with those AI's?
You can verbally tell Stockfish to set up programs?
I guess I'll see the reply next time.
Theres alot of information out there on different types of AI you can check out. ChatGPT is an LLM and Stockfish is powered with like a specialized AI, weak one at that. The search tree and evaluation function it uses is algorithm based. It might actively use a neural network as well during play... Atleast Leela uses neural network. They essentially predict the most likely best decision like move or word. Obviously LLM is totally based on the machine learning and neural networks it completely relies on the data its fed.
I like that reply.
Octo didn't get personal. He chose to be informative.
There was no attempt to push something or insist on something.
My point derives from what I see in the news.
Where there's even major news about how AI is being used to write programs.
Is there relevance to how AI is used to write chess tablebase software?
There are frequent comments in this forum over the years about improving the algorithms used to form chess tablebase software.
Whether such software eventually solves all of chess - or it just accelerates and improves the current tablebases (which are kind of stuck on 8 pieces on board for now and they're still not factoring in castling) - somebody started talking about Stockfish as opposed to 'AI'.
--------------------
Is an argument going to be won by mentioning the word 'Stockfish'?
I don't think so.
Octo has rightly mentioned that Stockfish has a weak AI.
Should a discussion about chess-solving software (not chess-playing software) and AI being used to build that software ... be about the word 'Stockfish'?
Stockfish has a weak AI.
Should it be about the acronym 'LLM'?
When people around the world use AI for everyday purposes - there's little or no use nor appearance of the acronym 'LLM'.
Some people here are very knowledable about computers and software.
But ... (well some more posts will appear - that aspect of 'who and how' could be addressed later)
Feb 18, 2025
0
#14431
Optimissed wrote:
What a complete twit. Criticises others for being off-topic and subjects us to an immense diatribe concerning his personal random loves and hates.
Actually no. Pointed out that trying to intimidate the discussion partner by suddenly interjecting about switching college majors - isn't a legitimate argument.
Nor is desperately talking about one's family history as a tactic.
Is somebody scared of O? He doesn't like my posts.
Further indicates I'm doing the right thing.
Note that he ignored the post about tablebase solving right above his whining post.
Feb 18, 2025
0
#14432
Optimissed wrote:
playerafar wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
What a complete twit. Criticises others for being off-topic and subjects us to an immense diatribe concerning his personal random loves and hates.
Actually no. Pointed out that trying to intimidate the discussion partner by suddenly interjecting about switching college majors - isn't a legitimate argument.
Nor is desperately talking about one's family history as a tactic.
Is somebody scared of O? He doesn't like my posts.
Further indicates I'm doing the right thing.
Note that he ignored the post about tablebase solving right above his whining post.
Calm down ... you are being completely ridiculous. Also either you don't know what "majors" are or you don't know that we use single subjects, so I swapped a single subject degree in computing into one in philosophy. No major-minors involved.
Follow your own advice.
Your pretenses that people who disagree with you are 'crazy' is silly.
Does it have some clowning-value?
Its supposed to be cute? Quaint?
Now worry some more about others having conversations around you and ignoring you and people talking to people you don't like.
Make sure you keep 'threatening to leave'.
Feb 18, 2025
0
#14433
Regarding 'O' (not I) when he gets a little tap on the shoulder ... very efficiently
his chip falls down and he then does a lot of gurgling and burbling for a while.
'forum activity' (I didn't read his last post)
And other forum conversations happen. Separate from him.
He gets very excited and upset about that. Or pretends to be.
That cycle repeats most days.
Just a little tap. Is all it takes.
So I'll follow this post by moving the comment on the forum topic I already made.
Feb 18, 2025
0
#14434
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
Dubrovnik-1950 wrote:
It is absolutely true.
"Mathematical rules can be abstracted from chess positions."
Yes, that is how chess engines have always worked. And work today.
That does not solve chess.
Oh yes if its done it does solve chess. If a single position (like fortress or zugzwang) can be solved without brute force search then its entirely possible any position can. We dont know whats doable.
And by the way engines have been horrible at detecting fortresses in the past, dont know how much better they are now.
Another good post by Octo.
'does solve chess'
That could mean 'all of chess' or simplified chess positions with less than half of the 32 pieces on board.
Are they exclusive of each other?
No.
------------
The role of AI in the tablebase projects - stockfish is relevant? A lot?
Point: using AI (not stockfish) to write the code for the tablebase projects.
'neural net' software? relevance.
Can any gigantic improvements in software make a dent in that gigantic number of 5 x 10^44 possible chess positions formulated by John Tromp?
There's still the hardware problems too. Number of ops per second.
To really make a dent anytime 'soon' ...
the project will need a good way of 'skipping' ...
a valid way.
(Not the silly ways pushed by a particular person for the first two years of this forum. ('taking the square root' - 'nodes per second' and so on. ) He's gone now though.)
--------------------------
In theory - chess might be solved well before the year 2100 like this?
if 'solved' could mean skipping the further processing of positions that already allow a forced win or draw to the side to move - or that move has already been made?
That's not quite worded well enough?
There's a particular detail not addressed.
If a forced draw move is available - what about if the player who has that option and is on move decides he/she would rather play for the win instead?
Or vice versa - chooses to take the draw instead of playing for the win?
Then such positions and their descendants don't look 'solved'.
--------------------------
Resolution: Such forced win or forced draw move has already been played.
I'm going to avoid the jargon term 'weakly solved'.
When the position has reached that point there's still a certain terminology though that I think is more worthwhile.
'there's still play in the position'.
In other words whoever might botch the forced win or forced draw.
Even having made the first move to 'force' it.
Happens constantly worldwide.
Feb 18, 2025
0
#14436
ChessAGC_YT wrote:
Stop glazing Octo. Opto is much better than that person.
AGC if you follow Opto then you'll want to give instructions.
Octo made some good posts and there's nothing you can do about it.
But keep trying.
You don't like Octo? That's too bad.
You need attention too?
I'll look for some good posts to reply to.
In the meantime please post so I don't have to make two consecutive.
Feb 18, 2025
0
#14437
The-New-Maximum wrote:
if a right angle is 90°, then doesn't that make a left angle -90°?
That's correct.
A left angle could simply be 'an angle on the left' ...
whereas in math parlance right angle usually means a 90 degee angle.
In diagrams with an angle on the left and an angle on the right that second one can just be referred to as 'angle on the right' ...
The New Maximum is correct.
Feb 18, 2025
0
#14438
The-New-Maximum wrote:
playerafar wrote:
The-New-Maximum wrote:
if a right angle is 90°, then doesn't that make a left angle -90°?
That's correct.
A left angle could simply be 'an angle on the left' ...
whereas in math parlance right angle usually means a 90 degee angle.
In diagrams with an angle on the left and an angle on the right that second one can just be referred to as 'angle on the right' ...
The New Maximum is correct.
does this mean an up angle is -180°, and a down angle is 180°
I don't think so.
180 degree angle is a funny angle. Its a straight line!
So is a zero degree angle. And a 360 degree angle.
They're also straight lines - but shorter.
😎
ChessAGC_YT wrote:
Stop glazing Octo. Opto is much better than that person.
You might not be the best judge of character. Optimissed just came off a 90 day mute, which you only get to by having a 30 day mute, which you only get to by having some 1 week mutes, which...well, I could go on and on. It's only a matter of time before he implodes again. His memory is not as keen as he would claim and he forgets he's on his best behavior eventually.
Feb 18, 2025
0
#14440
No, a weak solution (like the one of checkers) is not a "full-width search" (admittedly the term is non-standard and undefined, but it seems to refer to all moves in all positions). It encompasses a tiny fraction of the full game tree (more significantly of the full set of legal positions).
Such a weak both proves the optimal result of the game and provides a strategy for each player to achieve that result against all play. (That latter is the real "full width" condition).
Does that 'yes' answer mean that Stockfish is 'AI'?
AI in the general sense has been around for a long time.
One could say any operating computer and its software is 'AI'.
So Stockfish software inside a computer is 'AI' in that sense.
But what about AI in the more recent sense?
Things like chatgpt and copilot?
Stockfish is in that group?
You can have a conversation with Stockfish like you would with those AI's?
You can verbally tell Stockfish to set up programs?
I guess I'll see the reply next time.
Theres alot of information out there on different types of AI you can check out. ChatGPT is an LLM and Stockfish is powered with like a specialized AI, weak one at that. The search tree and evaluation function it uses is algorithm based. It might actively use a neural network as well during play... Atleast Leela uses neural network. They essentially predict the most likely best decision like move or word. Obviously LLM is totally based on the machine learning and neural networks it completely relies on the data its fed.