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.
I'm thinking that maybe AGC said something in some forum like 'what's this forum about?' or similiar.
Kids often do ask questions like that.
If one knows in advance its a kid - then allowances can be made.
But if the question got what it deserved - then Opto would be quick to take advantage and control the kid (a power play). Whatever kid it is.
Usually pre-teen or early teens.
Which would account for what's happened.
----------------
Regarding Opto's three month mute which just ended in December -
I'm thinking maybe it was going to be one or two months but then he would have likely sassed the moderators - so up to 3 months instead and he decided he didn't want 6 months.
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.
You guys no nothing about computer chess.
This is another bad post by both of you.
"Oh yes if its done it does solve chess. If a single position (like fortress or zugzwang)"
Zugzwang was a problem because chess computers moved away from a full width search, a type 1 search.. And would prune out the relevant lines. So the type 2 chess engine would not detect the Zugzwang. That did not solve chess. It helped solve some of the pruning issues with type 2 chess engines. In the SEARCH of the chess game tree.
And this was the same type of issue with fortress positions. The type 2 chess engines could search very deeply by pruning the chess game tree, but did not know what a fortress position was, and would prune out the relevant lines again in the SEARCH of the chess game tree.
This helped the type 2 chess engines like Stockfish, but did not solve the problem with the search completely. As there are many types of fortress positions. And the Neural Nets have learned to recognize some of these positions.
None of these techniques solved chess or could solve chess. Again it just helped in the search of the chess game tree. So the type 2 chess engines had a chance to spot these types of issues. And not prune them out of the search of the chess game tree.
Since chess is a 100% tactical game, the only way to solve chess. Is a full width search of the whole game tree of chess.
In that post Dubrovnik said nothing about the tablebases.
Just chess engines. Again talking about Stockfish.
He failed to address anything in our posts.
How long will it take him to grasp that the posts were about solving chess not playing chess?
Does he understand that attacking the 5 x 10^44 number has more potential than attacking the Shannon number?
One more time - computer programming to solve chess via table base - Not comparing chess engines like stockfish which also has a weak AI.
Looks like Dub isn't going to catch on.
That's okay. I've seen much worse.