Forums

Chess will never be solved, here's why

Sort:
Avatar of MARattigan
MARattigan
Jul 26, 2024
0
#14541
tygxc wrote:

@14920

"we don’t know if the computers ACTUALLY played perfectly"
++ This is not computer vs. computer,
but ICCF (grand)master + engines vs. ICCF (grand)master + engines

"we just know they are the SAME STRENGTH"
++ In previous years they were also the same strength, but there were decisive games.

But in the meantime computer analysis of the openings has removed a large percentage of wins within their depth. So they draw 100%. Just as they do in KNNvKP when the mate depth gets too high. (You can ignore the grandmaster; if they have any sense they do what SF tells them to.)

Avatar of TumoKonnin
TumoKonnin
Jul 26, 2024
0
#14542
tygxc hat geschrieben:

@14925

"You did not give any reason for the last point. Please demonstrate how it is incorrect"
++ Future engines cannot go below 0 error/game.
If the present 114 draws out of 114 games contained more than a few (2-3) draws with a pair of errors, then there would be at least 1 decisive game with an unpaired error.
Even if a few (2-3) draws with a pair of errors were found, then still the present 114 draws out of 114 games are part of a weak solution of chess, as 5 redundant lines of defense were found to draw.

“Future engines cannot go below 0 error per game”

Huh? What does that have to do with the question?

Avatar of Optimissed
Optimissed
Jul 26, 2024
0
#14543
DiogenesDue wrote:
ardutgamersus wrote:

it's not learning, it's updating its playstyle to yours, better said adapting its moves, which means it is learning. a move that could have been a blunder can now be a brilliant move, so it is learning.

No, Sherlock. Stockfish NNUE (or any modern engine that is a hybrid of traditional engines and machine learning engines) is learning from the overall inputs it is receiving, which are incorporated into new versions. The installed app you are playing is not learning from your games and changing on the fly, and even if it were made to do so, it certainly would not be needing to change anything remotely significant enough to be observable given games from human beings, unless it were being intentionally dumbed down to play poorly.

[Removed: Offensive] ~W

[Removed: Offensive] ~W

Avatar of Optimissed
Optimissed
Jul 26, 2024
0
#14544

I just read his post. Poor Dio can't read and although he claims to be a computer expert, he has never heard of a cache.

There never is any content. He's thick.

Avatar of TumoKonnin
TumoKonnin
Jul 26, 2024
0
#14545
Optimissed hat geschrieben:
TumoKonnin wrote:
Optimissed hat geschrieben:
DiogenesDue wrote:
ardutgamersus wrote:

it's not learning, it's updating its playstyle to yours, better said adapting its moves, which means it is learning. a move that could have been a blunder can now be a brilliant move, so it is learning.

No, Sherlock. Stockfish NNUE (or any modern engine that is a hybrid of traditional engines and machine learning engines) is learning from the overall inputs it is receiving, which are incorporated into new versions. The installed app you are playing is not learning from your games and changing on the fly, and even if it were made to do so, it certainly would not be needing to change anything remotely significant enough to be observable given games from human beings, unless it were being intentionally dumbed down to play poorly.

Optimissed's experience here is the same as his experiences everywhere else. He takes observational input, applies his never-ending need to be smarter/better/faster/stronger, then makes up a conclusion that fits his delusions of life and applies it.

Your mental illness here is probably the same as it is elsewhere.

You started the trolling so why are you so frightened of me? I can see clearly that you are. You're as obsessive as playerafar but why IS playerafar equally obsessed as you are, since you were trolling me, I answered you back and you BOTH ramped up the trolling? I wonder.

Well, no I don't wonder. I know.

Bro has no answer to the actual content of his response 💀💀🙏🙏🙏

troll.

There is no content. Tbh, I didn't read it.

Bruh, he was just correcting you. And all of a sudden, you accuse him of being crazy. Why? Also, if you actually can see, you can see he has a point. All you can do is yap about him being crazy, but in reality, you have no argument. 0. Nada.

Avatar of stealthx87
stealthx87
Jul 26, 2024
0
#14546

it will be solved

Avatar of TumoKonnin
TumoKonnin
Jul 26, 2024
0
#14547
Optimissed hat geschrieben:

I just read his post. Poor Dio can't read and although he claims to be a computer expert, he has never heard of a cache.

There never is any content. He's thick.

Because there IS NO CACHE in stockfish. If there was, it would be a terrible choice. For example, if that were to be the case, blunders will be stored, and stockfish will recommend blunders. Also please be civil, you’re sounding like a troll.

Avatar of TumoKonnin
TumoKonnin
Jul 26, 2024
0
#14548

Also, he does know what a cache is, please open your eyes and actually look at his responses.

Avatar of Optimissed
Optimissed
Jul 26, 2024
0
#14549

Anyway why would it store blunders? Can't you conceive of a filtered cache?? Do you think that there's no progress? I mean since you learned computing from Babbage in about 1861?

Avatar of TumoKonnin
TumoKonnin
Jul 26, 2024
0
#14550
Optimissed hat geschrieben:

Anyway why would it store blunders? Can't you conceive of a filtered cache?? Do you think that there's no progress? I mean since you learned computing from Babbage in about 1861?

Performance would suffer

Avatar of TumoKonnin
TumoKonnin
Jul 26, 2024
0
#14551

For instance, if it filtered every move, it would become much slower, especially in long games.

Avatar of TumoKonnin
TumoKonnin
Jul 26, 2024
0
#14552

Not only that, recall sometimes stockfish would change its mind if a move is good or not.

Avatar of MEGACHE3SE
MEGACHE3SE
Jul 26, 2024
0
#14553
TumoKonnin wrote:
tygxc hat geschrieben:

@14925

"You did not give any reason for the last point. Please demonstrate how it is incorrect"
++ Future engines cannot go below 0 error/game.
If the present 114 draws out of 114 games contained more than a few (2-3) draws with a pair of errors, then there would be at least 1 decisive game with an unpaired error.
Even if a few (2-3) draws with a pair of errors were found, then still the present 114 draws out of 114 games are part of a weak solution of chess, as 5 redundant lines of defense were found to draw.

“Future engines cannot go below 0 error per game”

Huh? What does that have to do with the question?

basically, tygxc assumes that the engines are already perfect, so therefore engines cannot improve in the future - as evidence for the claim that todays engines are perfect.

Avatar of TumoKonnin
TumoKonnin
Jul 26, 2024
0
#14554
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
TumoKonnin wrote:
tygxc hat geschrieben:

@14925

"You did not give any reason for the last point. Please demonstrate how it is incorrect"
++ Future engines cannot go below 0 error/game.
If the present 114 draws out of 114 games contained more than a few (2-3) draws with a pair of errors, then there would be at least 1 decisive game with an unpaired error.
Even if a few (2-3) draws with a pair of errors were found, then still the present 114 draws out of 114 games are part of a weak solution of chess, as 5 redundant lines of defense were found to draw.

“Future engines cannot go below 0 error per game”

Huh? What does that have to do with the question?

basically, tygxc assumes that the engines are already perfect, so therefore engines cannot improve in the future - as evidence for the claim that todays engines are perfect.

But that doesn’t make sense

Avatar of MEGACHE3SE
MEGACHE3SE
Jul 26, 2024
0
#14555
TumoKonnin wrote:

But that doesn’t make sense

that is because it is incredibly fallacious and is circular 'logic'.

you'll notice that tygxc will just continue his loop pretending to maintaining a facade of justification throughout this forum as he goes through each of his cycle of assumptions, it wont be long again until you ask "how do you know its perfect play" and tygxc will respond "because of the 114 draws" again, even though you are trying to get him to justify WHY the draws mean perfect play.

ive seen his loop many times

Avatar of TumoKonnin
TumoKonnin
Jul 26, 2024
0
#14556
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
TumoKonnin wrote:

But that doesn’t make sense

that is because it is incredibly fallacious and is circular 'logic'.

you'll notice that tygxc will just continue his loop pretending to maintaining a facade of justification throughout this forum as he goes through each of his cycle of assumptions.

ive see his loop many times

Yeah, i think he’s trolling tbh. I’ve seen him on other forums, his logic just sucks.

Avatar of DiogenesDue
DiogenesDue
Jul 26, 2024
0
#14557
TumoKonnin wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
TumoKonnin wrote:

But that doesn’t make sense

that is because it is incredibly fallacious and is circular 'logic'.

you'll notice that tygxc will just continue his loop pretending to maintaining a facade of justification throughout this forum as he goes through each of his cycle of assumptions.

ive see his loop many times

Yeah, i think he’s trolling tbh. I’ve seen him on other forums, his logic just sucks.

If he had the proof he claims to have and had the bona fides he claims to have, he'd have published a paper ala Tromp by now, but he hasn't either of those, and won't ever have them. Thus, the endless posting of the same stuff.

Avatar of TumoKonnin
TumoKonnin
Jul 26, 2024
0
#14558

Btw what happened to optimissed’s posts? They’re deleted

Avatar of DiogenesDue
DiogenesDue
Jul 26, 2024
0
#14559
TumoKonnin wrote:

Btw what happened to optimissed’s posts? They’re deleted

He's apparently been muted, for the 3rd or 4th time in as many months.

Avatar of TumoKonnin
TumoKonnin
Jul 26, 2024
0
#14560
DiogenesDue wrote:
TumoKonnin wrote:

Btw what happened to optimissed’s posts? They’re deleted

He's apparently been muted, for the 3rd or 4th time in as many months.

Finally lol