@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.
🍎
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Mar 13, 2025
0
#15702
> 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
#15704
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.
Still we need just wait...
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.
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.
Yeah, I heard about 10^80 and 10^120
Thats why all I can do is to wait...
Mar 13, 2025
0
#15712
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
Great, so we dont even have to wait for the technology with 10^120 performance, everything will happen much sooner
Mar 13, 2025
0
#15715
MARattigan wrote:
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.
MAR - you've rendered nothing invalid.
You want to talk about draws.
I'm talking about wins.
I say Potay toe - you say grapefruit.
I tell you about wins - you want to talk about draws.
Did you truncate a point I made? I should care?
But Martin's a good guy.
--------------------------------
So - I listed the three situations of 'game theory' in chess.
Without the jargon. To make the point.
---------------
But I'll try a simple example - again - lets see if you can 'hook up'
King plus rook versus lone King. One of the first things players are taught.
Its a Win. (unless you mess up with stalemate)
So now you add another rook to the side that already has a rook ...
Its not a win anymore? That's also a win - provided its not stalemate ...
You get it MAR?
If you don't - its because you don't intend to.
You can add as many pieces to the winning side as you like provided it doesn't cause stalemate .. and is legal.
And its still a win.
The computer doesn't have to brute force them all out to assign a win.
Why not? Because the programmer tells the computer to not do that.
The only concern is stalemate.
------------------------
Do you see how your Blathy doesn't work now Martin?
You want to add a bunch of bishops moving on the same color squares pieces to drawing edge-pawn situations and argue they're still draws?
That's about draws - not wins.
Get it yet?
Maybe in a week?
Martin - you mentioned some time ago to the effect that you read posts when you choose and reply when you choose. I do the same thing.
Maybe I'll check in a week to see if you've replied about adding pieces to the side with a rook against lone king.
If you don't get that one - your talk about drawn positions proves nothing.
If you do get that one - then again - talk about drawn positions is irrelevant.
You may as well be trying to claim that Venus 'isn't a planet because Saturn has rings'.
--------------------------------
Regarding adding pieces of one color to drawn situations - that will usually interfere with the draw .... it will cause the situation to be a won situation. Altering the situation's result.
Which is why a method of adding more pieces doesn't work with draws.
------------------------
But with wins - adding pieces to the winning side usually doesn't interfere with the result ...
(except speeding up the win.) - do 'adding pieces' works in that case.
Especially against Lone King.
But the solving computers still have a little work - to make sure before declaring a new position continuing to be a win - that there's no stalemate on the board and no unavoidable stalemate.
With the winning side on move against lone king - is that even possible?
Winning side - not drawing side (there's no such side)
-------------------------------
Talk to you in a week about that Martin. (maybe).
Because all your posts about things having nothing to do with the facts of adding pieces to positions that are won because of lopsided material advantage - are irrelevant.
Mar 13, 2025
0
#15716
emilio1689 wrote:
Great, so we dont even have to wait for the technology with 10^120 performance, everything will happen much sooner
EE is wrong. Again.
There are 'combinatorics'.
EE doesn't get it about how the 13^64 number gets reduced.
And probably won't,.
----------------------------------
Hi emilio!
Everything will happen 'much sooner'?
You mean in only a few trillion years instead of in a trillion trillion years?
-------------------
Martin doesn't like the idea of adding pieces to obviously won positions.
As a shortcut to reduce the solving task by a big factor.
But Martin's OK.
-------------------
Maybe its just too obvious - that if a position is a won position because of material advantage and you add more material to the winning side - that's its still a won position unless there's a stalemate.
On a scale of one to ten where ten is most obvious - how obvious is that one?
9.99 out of ten?
Mar 13, 2025
0
#15717
Pedantically, the AI copy and paste is incorrect. To solve chess you need to know the initial state and the rules about moving (each of which maps a state to a state) and terminal values. Nothing else.
For example, when you are presented with a chess problem, you are being given an initial game state and asked to solve it, and you can, given knowledge of the rules. The only difference is that for solving chess you are given the initial position, and the analysis needed is a bit (ahem) larger.
Also, the reference to the game tree - it says
"...the 1012010^{120}10120 game tree. Solving chess means navigating that tree,"
is at best misleading (at worst simply wrong). You do NOT need to navigate the game tree, just a tiny fraction of it (very rough estimate 10^30 nodes). Again, this is like for solving a chess problem: if you guess the first move correctly, you only need look at lines that start with that first move - you have successfully ignored all the branches of the game tree that start with other moves. And this can happen at any stage in the solution, not just the first move.
And again, the same is true of solving chess, in principle (it's just impractically large).
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
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.
Yes but that is just taking the definition literally. Chess uses finite geometrics in terms of piece movement rules and board dimensions, but it has nothing do with actually analyzing lines to solve it. With actual combinatorial puzzles like knights tours and magic/Latin squares..etc/that type of math is directly involved in the solutions as well. With chess, maybe very specific endgames like KNBK or King and Pawns vs King and Pawns, or pawnless endgames like KRBKR and KNNKP or even simply KQKR, it can be reduced down to a few dozen geometric/parametric rules that can together solve all those positions, but the rest is brute force, which isn't really combinatorics, it's number-crunching/computer programming/algorithms. Too many people seem to think that chess has a mathematical solution since the rules and constraints of the game can be somewhat represented mathematically, but in reality, when you are actually analyzing, playing, or computing anything chess related, it is just chess at that point, not math. Hope that clarifies what I was saying!
Mar 13, 2025
0
#15719
playerafar wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
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 #15543, 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.
MAR - you've rendered nothing invalid.You want to talk about draws.
I'm talking about wins.
I say Potay toe - you say grapefruit.
I tell you about wins - you want to talk about draws.
Did you truncate a point I made? I should care?
For a long time there was a lot of interest in solving Fermat's last theorem and certain university departments accepted mail from anybody purporting to have a solution, of which there were many. These were scanned by graduate students and a standard response template was produced saying, "Your first mistake is on page ..., line ...". I take the same approach when reading your posts, which may result in some truncation.
You made two assertions in your post #15543. I assert I have invalidated both. To refute that it is not sufficient to simply say I have not refuted anything and say what youl'd like to talk about. (In fact in the refutations I've talked about both draws and wins.)
The first of your assertions is a resurrection of @tygxc's assertion that a sufficient mismatch of material is enough to evaluate a position as won for the side with the most material without further analysis.
Click on the text to link to where you asserted it.
So you're asserting that @tygxc's idea was correct, he just didn't specify enough material in the difference.
You never specified what material difference would be enough but @Elroch and I have posted positions up to the full material in the starting position, where the side with the most material has either a draw or a loss. That invalidates your assertion in #15543 unless you specify that the material difference should be more than either side's starting force and it's pretty obvious if you did we could give you counterexamples anyway.
This position is a draw.
You have possibly amended your stance in a vague way subsequently.
I have to admit that didn't make a lot of sense to me but I assumed it meant that in automatically assigning the value "win" to positions you would exclude positions with some (unspecified) number of same coloured bishops in the material of the majority side. (I found "that isn't talking about 'won' positions" completely unfathomable.)
You did at that point detail a conversation with Grok, which I didn't bother to read at the time - looking at it now, it seems to have been about your second assertion in #15543 anyway.
I pointed out that the Bláthy position I posted had only one bishop anyway, to which you responded
I don't know why a stalemate check should be remotely relevant to what we were discussing, but the Bláthy example has a large mismatch in material and no bishops on the same colour squares, so is obviously completely relevant to what we had been discussing, whatever your previous post meant.
At that point I tried:
Your response:
At which point you appear to have slipped out of our discussion and back into the discussion you were having with your AI.
I tried:
I posted the Bláthy position in response to:
response:
Obviously now permanently stuck in your AI conversation and incapable of making any sense.
I attempted to get the discussion back on track by a full recap (I won't post the full text). But nothing further on the first of the assertions in your post #15543 until the above post.
So I contend, despite the vague nature of your discussion following #15543 the first of your assertions stands refuted because the counterexamples posted in the absence of any algorithm from you to distinguish positions in general as counterexamples is sufficient refutation.
Your second assertion in #15543 was
In my response I said
How? What use would your number be in cutting down the work in tablebase generation?
Response came there none. To a programmer it is blatantly obvious that simply establishing such a number would have zero effect on the speed of tablebase generation procedure. So I contend that your second of your assertions also stands refuted.
I did indicate that we could consider your second suggestion further once we had agreed the verdict on the first. (With amendment it could be interesting to investigate the effect.) But preferably not as a three way conversation with an AI.
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.