this is solved. Vote for bill/dorito for president of OTF. Hes an amazing leader, have you seen the Weirdmageddon episodes. Well, when you vote for him, you'll see SOOOOOO many benefits.
1. He's chill and doesn't put restricyions
2. hes a triangle
3. The best deal maker in all of history
4. Nice and funny
5. you can summon him whenever u want. need help? Triangulum, entangulum, meteforis, dominus ventium, meteforis venetisa.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Mar 13, 2025
0
#15682
Mar 13, 2025
0
#15683
According to game theory there are three situations among all legal chess positions:
1) A strategy is available for white to force a win for white.
2) A strategy is available for black to force a win for black.
3) A strategy is available for white - or for black - to force a draw.
------------------------
@MARattigan -
looks like you're not interested in this idea of adding to established won positions -
thereby
1) avoiding 'game tree' in either direction
2) avoiding very quickly having to brute-solve gazillions of positions simply by only establishing there's no stalemate or other draw possibility and therefore the new position is also won and 'case closed'.
You're 'not interested' but that's okay. Fine.
Want to concern about 'exactly what was said'?
There's an alternative to that below.
-----------------------
Some might not catch on to an additional factor - but that's okay too.
that for the third 'game situation' - the idea of 'very shortened algorithm for positions created by adding material to the position (not retrograde moves) doesn't work in that case of either side 'having a strategy to force a draw' (instead of a win) - whereas it does work for the first two.
--------------------
Two reasons for it not working for situation 3
because in such 'force a draw is available' positions perhaps a win could be forced instead - and that has to be determined first - because then the draw factor would be superfluous!
and second reason - because the side that can force the draw because that side is on move (part of defining the position) could elect to 'play for the win' instead ...
'available strategy to force a draw' just doesn't contain as much simpicity no matter how much 'intrinsic' simplicity it has.
'intrinsic' doesn't cut it.
Becaise of 'the bigger picture'.
----------------
For those who react with 'Whaaattt? What is that?' - the irony is that that's part of 'getting it' - that's the point.
Game situation 3 just doesn't have the neatness Game situations 1 and 2 have.
Is that 'bad use' of the phrase 'game situation'?
Was I supposed to say 'game theoretic value' instead?
--------------------
its not rocket science ...
White having at least one option to force a win and black having at least one option to force a win (they're exclusive of each other) ....
those first two of the three game situations each take care of themselves.
--------------------
But the other situation - where either side has an option to force a draw (its really two situations but in game theory they express it as one - maybe because the resulting game score is the same for each of the two players in both of those two situations- whereas in the first two situations the scores differ (even though 'zero sum' again.) - they differ because White winning is different from black winning.
Whereas with either side forcing a draw the result is the same for both players unlike in the first two cases.)
But overall result: the 'can force a draw' situation does not take care of itself (unlike the first two situations) because it does not exclude the first two situations.
--------------------------
Again:
According to game theory there are three situations among all legal chess positions:
1) A strategy is available for white to force a win for white.
2) A strategy is available for black to force a win for black.
3) A strategy is available for white - or for black - to force a draw.
---------------------
Those three situations look extremely neat and simple and complete.
Yes?
Neat and simple yes.
Complete - no.
For multiple reasons.
One being - it isn't always known which is of the three situations applies so when that's the case then for the purpose of choice - you've already got at least a fourth situation.
Another being that situations 1 and 2 each exclude the other and each exclude situation 3 also.
But situation 3 does not exclude the other two.
You could call it 'assymetry'.
--------------
Implication: In situation 3 (which Martin so far refuses to distinguish from situations 1 and 2 but he's a good man nonetheless but that's a different subject) -
in situation 3 - you can't 'shorten the algorithm' for other positions created by adding material to situation 3 positions - because situation 3 wasn't/isn't taking care of itself to start with.
-----------------------------
Gobbledygook?
No. Because its what chessplayers deal with every game they play!
Year in year out.
Century in - century out.
Everybody knows that when you're forcing a win that takes care of itself.
But mostly everybody also knows too that in positions where you've got an option to force a draw that players often prefer to play on for a win instead,
especially if you've got an advantage on the board. Or on the clock. Or both.
Happens constantly !!
You know it! (the sunglasses smiley below is meant as a big hint - that its not about me.)
You see - you know it. Reality. (Australia exists too - but I hear there are doubters of that ... and the same people claim the earth is flat too)
But - the earth is Round - and its your Apple. So eat it. The flatters don't get it.
😎
Mar 13, 2025
0
#15684
I asked Grok 3, claimed by Elon Musk (and his fans?) to be the world's smartest AI, about people who post the outputs of AIs without any critical thinking by themself. The response was rather lengthy, but here are the conclusions, which should serve as advice for anyone who wishes to use AI output:
<< Conclusion and Recommendations
In conclusion, posting AI-generated content without understanding is generally concerning due to the potential for misinformation and trust erosion, as evidenced by criticisms on X and research from TechTarget and NPR. However, it’s not universally negative; transparency and context can mitigate harms, especially for trivial or educational uses. Moving forward, individuals should strive to understand topics before posting, verify AI outputs, and be clear about their use of AI to maintain credibility.
This analysis underscores the need for a balanced approach, recognizing both the risks and potential benefits, while encouraging critical thinking in an AI-driven content landscape.>>
Mar 13, 2025
0
#15686
Elroch wrote:
I asked Grok 3, claimed by Elon Musk (and his fans?) to be the world's smartest AI about people who post the outputs of AIs without any critical thinking by themself. The response was rather lengthy, but here are the conclusions, which should serve as advice for anyone who wishes to use AI output:
<< Conclusion and Recommendations
In conclusion, posting AI-generated content without understanding is generally concerning due to the potential for misinformation and trust erosion, as evidenced by criticisms on X and research from TechTarget and NPR. However, it’s not universally negative; transparency and context can mitigate harms, especially for trivial or educational uses. Moving forward, individuals should strive to understand topics before posting, verify AI outputs, and be clear about their use of AI to maintain credibility.
This analysis underscores the need for a balanced approach, recognizing both the risks and potential benefits, while encouraging critical thinking in an AI-driven content landscape.>>
Posting AI-generated quotes unthinkingly differs from posting Wikipedia quotes and google quotes unthinkinly - 'how'?
Suggestion: its the same animal.
The longer the quotes the more it might be 'concerning' but this isn't to be blamed on AI.
And quoting without quote marks is yet another problem to Not be blamed on AI.
------------------
Why do many want to blame AI for this?
Its not AIs fault.
-----------------
But 'the situation' is that AI is becoming hugely popular -
'like Totally. I mean .. Dudesky - Its like Totally. Like man - Totally. Like.'
Its that popularity (the popularity is deserved) that is causing these new situations ...
but good news:
people using the permissiveness of chess.com software to post without limit -
well that's not a new thing -
but that 'old problem' gets handled in the same ways as before.
I skipped reading Dubrovnik/Avro's posts that he made a few hours ago.
Skipped them.
They're water under the bridge.
Members take care of their end their way. Including with their block buttons.
And if the moderators want to do something about Dubro making new accounts and they can then they probably will.
🍎
Mar 13, 2025
0
#15687
playerafar wrote:
...
@MARattigan -
looks like you're not interested in this idea of adding to established won positions -
thereby
1) avoiding 'game tree' in either direction
2) avoiding very quickly having to brute-solve gazillions of positions simply by only establishing there's no stalemate or other draw possibility and therefore the new position is also won and 'case closed'.
You're 'not interested' but that's okay. Fine
...
Not at all.
I did put some comments in my response to your post #15468.
I explained my position in #15533 - did you read it?
I haven't actually read anything since #15468 that you've posted concerning your second topic (B) in response to my posts since it was obviously not concerning what I'd written about (all about your first topic (A)).
If you agree that A can be discounted (I don't think you have yet) we can get onto your second topic B. Have you read what I wrote about it in #15474?
power_9_the_people wrote:
What about combining mathematics and computer 🖥 science?
Combinatorial game theory is a branch of mathematics and theoretical computer science that typically studies sequential games with perfect information. Study has been largely confined to two-player games that have a position that the players take turns changing in defined ways or moves to achieve a defined winning condition. Combinatorial game theory has not traditionally studied games of chance or those that use imperfect or incomplete information, favoring games that offer perfect information in which the state of the game and the set of available moves is always known by both players. However, as mathematical techniques advance, the types of game that can be mathematically analyzed expands, thus the boundaries of the field are ever changing. Scholars will generally define what they mean by a "game" at the beginning of a paper, and these definitions often vary as they are specific to the game being analyzed and are not meant to represent the entire scope of the field.
Combinatorics is more about mathematical problems involving the chessboard itself rather than the game of chess. Such as the 8 queens problem, knights tours, making magic squares/Latin squares on the board, piece-domination problems (e.g. minimum of 5 queens to control every square on an 8x8 board). Has nothing to do with chess strategy or tactics. Games like Sudoko or Lights-out can solved by actual pure math (specifically Linear Algebra and systems of equations for lights-out). Chess is not a mathematical game in that sense. There's no equations for those mates in 50 that people are posting here.
Mar 13, 2025
0
#15689
@MARattigan -
so you see the points about game theory and the three situations?
In my most recent postings?
Do you get it about situations 1 and 2 taking care or themselves but situation 3 doesn't?
If you do - you can always let out a shout about that.
And if so then that's Far Out. Man. I mean like Dude. Totally. Like.
But if not - that could be an out-shout Too ... Like ...
No comment? Hey - no date on the Court Calendar for that.
When I was younger I played a lot of tennis. You know - with the 78 foot court?
Including with the other gender.
Court date.
🍎
Mar 13, 2025
0
#15690
> Chess will never be solved, here's why
Just a matter of technology (large scale combinatorial computational problem) and the technology itself has no limits so lets just wait...
Mar 13, 2025
0
#15691
playerafar wrote:
@MARattigan -
so you see the points about game theory and the three situations?
In my most recent postings?
Do you get it about situations 1 and 2 taking care or themselves but situation 3 doesn't?
...
I had a quick scan. Seems to depend on your second topic in #15468, which I thought I discounted in my response to that post - again, did you read it?
And again, have we finished with your first topic? Can we agree it's invalid?
We could then discuss your second topic, which may render irrelevant discussion of the new points you mention above.
emilio1689 wrote:
> Chess will never be solved, here's why
Just a matter of technology (large scale combinatorial computational problem) and the technology itself has no limits so lets just wait...
It's not combinatorics, people are just using that term cause it sounds like "combinations" in a chess game. It's not game theory either as that has to do with optimization usually involving chance and anticipating, while not having full information on either side about the other side. Gambling/Prisoner Dilemna/Monte Carlo type problems are game theory. And combinatorics is more about the geometry of the board space itself and the ensuing multi-dimensional mathematical patterns. The computing, pattern recognition, and tablebases in chess are not combinatorics.
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
emilio1689 wrote:
> Chess will never be solved, here's why
Just a matter of technology (large scale combinatorial computational problem) and the technology itself has no limits so lets just wait...
It's not combinatorics, people are just using that term cause it sounds like "combinations" in a chess game. It's not game theory either as that has to do with optimization usually involving chance and anticipating, while not having full information on either side about the other side. Gambling/Prisoner Dilemna/Monte Carlo type problems are game theory. And combinatorics is more about the geometry of the board space itself and the ensuing multi-dimensional mathematical patterns. The computing, pattern recognition, and tablebases in chess are not combinatorics.
Im not exactly sure what youre saying but principles of combinatorics definitely apply to chess... Enumeration, analyzing different arrangements within a system are combinatorics and apply to chess, its not just geometrics.. But geometric reasoning can be applied to chess as well.
Mar 13, 2025
0
#15695
Besides any integer optimization problem may be solved by evaluating all possible combinations so we just have to wait the proper technology to solve it 
kirill kryukov has done more for solving chess than just abt a/o. eva.
Mar 13, 2025
0
#15697
Yeah, I heard about 10^80 and 10^120
Thats why all I can do is to wait...
Mar 13, 2025
0
#15699
emilio1689 wrote:
Yeah, I heard about 10^80 and 10^120
Thats why all I can do is to wait...
that is with illegal moves
they say goats & tigers got weakly solved. i wonder if chutes & ladders ever did ? (...nvm)