not sure but i think bruce lee was drinking tiger milk in the movie (orange juice-milk mix)
the guy doing a parody of bruce lee ...
'chuck norse' actually had a mock fight with the real bruce lee ... in a different movie.
which bruce 'won'.
s
they say bruce died w/a you-know-what on. if that was the case ?...then i wonder what theyre gonna find when chuck norse goes...hmm
I enjoy making/reading long posts, helps me learn and understand things. Also helps me understand English slightly better.
Your English is good though.
My understanding of sentences is subpar. I can barely get two sentences into the conversations you and the others have. It's difficult for me at least.
I don't know what your first language is ... not asking.
Its just that your english seems very good.
regarding 'solutions in our lifetimes'
it seems reasonable to think there might be some completion of some chess projects in the next couple of decades.
That's if some of those solutions haven't already happened.
Chess is a widely known game - but developments within it don't get much attention - relatively speaking.
Regarding my english, it gets a bit iffy whenever I try to speak in an informal manner. When I actually decide that it's worth speaking formally (or some semblance of formality) I think I do well. Problem isn't writing, but understanding. Deeper meanings fail to get to me because either I'm too dense or the description of the word has multiple meanings (e.g something like the word 'crane' - a bird or a construction device) or a deeper meaning that I fail to comprehend.
--------- Regarding the rest of the post though; If you look at the rate of growth in chess intrest it seems to have spiked during the pandemic and now it's slowly growing like a forest fire. More and more people are getting interested. It's only a matter of time before someone with skills decides to try and 'solve' chess on a basic level. If I remember correctly, endgames have already been solved to an extent so a person with the right skills and the right funding could theoretically begin developing software to start running chess positions - albeit the method they use will differ from ours, surely. 100s of ways to solve chess, but only a couple produce efficient results w/out accounting for all positions, for example.
No that's just supposed to be a jab at the people consistently interacting in this forum with long messages.
thx !...u gettit.
Seeing as I'm starting to become one of those people (to an extent) it becomes quite obvious to me as to what you were referring to and how. Wouldn't say having long messages is inherently bad though, it helps people get their thoughts across in one message rather than going:
Yes, but x
*two messages later
To add to what I said, y
*two messages later
Yeah, but x and y can tie into point z.
It comes off as spammy and I don't really like stuff like that. Big messages over small ones any day of the year.
...except today ? lol !
I enjoy making/reading long posts, helps me learn and understand things. Also helps me understand English slightly better.
Your English is good though.
My understanding of sentences is subpar. I can barely get two sentences into the conversations you and the others have. It's difficult for me at least.
I don't know what your first language is ... not asking.
Its just that your english seems very good.
regarding 'solutions in our lifetimes'
it seems reasonable to think there might be some completion of some chess projects in the next couple of decades.
That's if some of those solutions haven't already happened.
Chess is a widely known game - but developments within it don't get much attention - relatively speaking.
Regarding my english, it gets a bit iffy whenever I try to speak in an informal manner. When I actually decide that it's worth speaking formally (or some semblance of formality) I think I do well. Problem isn't writing, but understanding. Deeper meanings fail to get to me because either I'm too dense or the description of the word has multiple meanings (e.g something like the word 'crane' - a bird or a construction device) or a deeper meaning that I fail to comprehend.
--------- Regarding the rest of the post though; If you look at the rate of growth in chess intrest it seems to have spiked during the pandemic and now it's slowly growing like a forest fire. More and more people are getting interested. It's only a matter of time before someone with skills decides to try and 'solve' chess on a basic level. If I remember correctly, endgames have already been solved to an extent so a person with the right skills and the right funding could theoretically begin developing software to start running chess positions - albeit the method they use will differ from ours, surely. 100s of ways to solve chess, but only a couple produce efficient results w/out accounting for all positions, for example.
Different 'phases' of english (or any language)
Like comprehension of printed speech versus comprehension of spoken language.
When I went to France - it was almost impossible to know what had been said (in french itself let alone translate it) by whoever - unles they were both talking to me and slowed down to under half speed. Then I understood a percentage of it.
Higher percentage if they used more common words and short sentences.
They said I spoke french well but they were being nice.
The hard test: when they don't know instantly you're a foreigner - usually they do. Worldwide.
----------
When people can't understand each other's first language - is english the #1 go to?
Apparently it is. Including by mandarin speakers.
But growing use of translation services are apparently knocking down the 'go to' to english on the internet.
And somehow - I think the growing use of AI is probably figuring in language translation.
In other words - language translation is probably improving in leaps and bounds.
Catching far more of those 'nuances of meaning'.
they say bruce died w/a you-know-what on.
No, I don't know what.
But I do know his son Brandon Lee died 20 years later at 28 from an accidental shooting while he was (ironically) filming the death scene of his character in The Crow.
if that was the case ?...then i wonder what theyre gonna find when chuck norse goes...hmm
they say bruce died w/a you-know-what on.
No, I don't know what.
But I do know his son Brandon Lee died 20 years later at 28 from an accidental shooting while he was (ironically) filming the death scene of his character in The Crow.
if that was the case ?...then i wonder what theyre gonna find when chuck norse goes...hmm
What Lola suggested there - sounds more like David Carridine.
According to the internet he died in Bangkok.
Doing a particular thing apparently. But not in any natural way.
Can't mention all the details though.
David starred in many movies and TV shows.
Including 'Kung-Fu' and Lone Wolf McQuade (also had 'Chuck Norse') and Kill Bill.
---------------------
But DC's death is so typical of early deaths among the very wealthy.
Its astounding - but with all their privileges and leisure and intelligence - they 'get bored' anyway.
It demonstrates something.
One kind of intelligence doesn't necessarily apply or transfer over to other kinds of intelligence.
Or might actually interfere ...
David Carridine died at 72. It was premature, by its very unnecessary nature, not not very"early" at 5 years less than the rather low US average male life expectancy (many factors - poor diet, poor exercise, dangerous roads, guns, drugs and incomplete healthcare coverage).
I had a high regard for Carridine in the series Kung Fu, and in the Kill Bill movies. Can't recall what he did between!
Wasn't there a counter-claim that the longest forced mate occurs at a relatively small number of pieces, because with increasing numbers, there is less chance of there not being a short win if there is a long one?
From Google/Co-pilot "Yes, you're correct; the longest forced checkmate sequences, or "mate-in-n" problems, are often found with a relatively small number of pieces, and the reason is that as the number of pieces increases, the complexity of the game grows exponentially, making it harder to find and maintain a long, forced mate." Not sure if it is accurate though.
Doesn't correspond with what we can actually measure so far.
(Note the logarithmic scale on the y axis. Also that figures for 8 to 10 men are predictions rather than actuals. Also that the figures are from DTM tablebases and apply only to basic rules.)
In 1950 Claude Shannon came up with his 'Shannon number' of 10^120 which is a lower bound estimate about number of possible chess games. Do I swear by that? No.
But considering positions instead of games cuts it down to 13^64 and then an upper bound on legal positions cuts that to John Tromp's number of 4.8 x 10^44.
Which was published this century.
That's less than a septillionth of a septillionth of a septillionth of the Shannon number.
But that's still not a big enough cutdown. To solve chess.
JT's number is still way too big.
-----------------------------
What is directly known about that big upper bound on legal chess positons of 4.8 X 10^44 ?
Well right away its known there can only be 31 kinds of position.
From just two pieces on board (the two kings only) right on up to 32 pieces on board.
That's a jump of 30 types. With 29 in-between types.
------------------------------------
So the total number of positions is the sum of a series with 31 terms in it.
With a '3612' on the left end but a gigantic term on the right end 30 terms later.
The second term in the series is less than 5 million. Three men on board.
The middle term of the 31 term series is the number of positions with 17 men on board.
2 Kings plus 15 other men on board. A gigantic number of positions.
Tablebase projects have struggled for years with just 8 men on board.
---------------------------
The much smaller sum of the numbers of possible material setups is also the sum of a series.
Which is again a series with 31 terms in it.
But there's only one possible material setup for 2 men on board. Or for 32 men on board.
So this time there's a '1' on both the left and right ends of the series.
And there's only 10 possible material setups with three men on board.
1 + 10 + ...... + ......+1)
Again with the middle term of the 31-term series being the number of possible material setups with 17 men on board. The two Kings plus 15 other men on board.
But with a lot of different ways for that material to be. Could be 15 pieces or 15 pawns.
And a lot of mixtures in between. Including with a lot of promotions.
--------------------
Its probably known already.
How many possible legal material setups there are throughout chess.
Very hard for a person to figure out. Even for a mathematician it would be no picnic.
But with a decent mainframe computer it would be different. The programming?
That one might be a short easy picnic. Even with any modern laptop.
Will 'somebody' get it wrong for over a month as to what is meant by a 'material setup'?
The types of men on the board. How many of each.
Can be instantly understood. Instantly.
Does not refer to where they're placed or how many squares are available in each case.
That's something different.
David Carridine died at 72. It was premature, by its very unnecessary nature, not not very"early" at 5 years less than the rather low US average male life expectancy (many factors - poor diet, poor exercise, dangerous roads, guns, drugs and incomplete healthcare coverage).
I had a high regard for Carridine in the series Kung Fu, and in the Kill Bill movies. Can't recall what he did between!
The strange manner of DC's death made it 'earlier'.
Life expectancy for US males is about 75 years old.
(yes it was probably less back then)
For UK males its about 79 years old these days it seems.
Even though the US spends twice as much per capita on healthcare.
None of those US or UK senior males are going to solve chess.
There just isn't time.
Wasn't there a counter-claim that the longest forced mate occurs at a relatively small number of pieces, because with increasing numbers, there is less chance of there not being a short win if there is a long one?
From Google/Co-pilot "Yes, you're correct; the longest forced checkmate sequences, or "mate-in-n" problems, are often found with a relatively small number of pieces, and the reason is that as the number of pieces increases, the complexity of the game grows exponentially, making it harder to find and maintain a long, forced mate." Not sure if it is accurate though.
Doesn't correspond with what we can actually measure so far.
(Note the logarithmic scale on the y axis. Also that figures for 8 to 10 men are predictions rather than actuals. Also that the figures are from DTM tablebases and apply only to basic rules.)
There are only 4 data points on that graph. Extrapolation almost as far again is very hazardous as I know from personal experience in a work context!
An amusing exercise is to fit different models to such data (eg linear, quadratic, cubic) and see how rapidly the extrapolations diverge. There is of course no reason to be confident there are no higher order terms in the relationship.
I am trying to think what the source of the claim was that the longest mate was likely to be with a relatively small number of pieces (say nearer 0 than 32). Whoever it was sounded convincing, because previously I had the idea that the longest mate would be extremely long and involve a large number of pieces.
One relevant factor is that there are not so many positions with very large numbers of pieces. To have any promotion you need some captures, and you need a few to give you more than small number of possibilities for the material balance. I think John Tromp told me which number of pieces had the largest number of positions. Can't recall the details.
People dying? Was reading about what happened yesterday to Roman 😕 Polansky's friends at the end of the hippie era.... Never been solved
Wasn't there a counter-claim that the longest forced mate occurs at a relatively small number of pieces, because with increasing numbers, there is less chance of there not being a short win if there is a long one?
From Google/Co-pilot "Yes, you're correct; the longest forced checkmate sequences, or "mate-in-n" problems, are often found with a relatively small number of pieces, and the reason is that as the number of pieces increases, the complexity of the game grows exponentially, making it harder to find and maintain a long, forced mate." Not sure if it is accurate though.
Doesn't correspond with what we can actually measure so far.
(Note the logarithmic scale on the y axis. Also that figures for 8 to 10 men are predictions rather than actuals. Also that the figures are from DTM tablebases and apply only to basic rules.)
There are only 4 data points on that graph. Extrapolation almost as far again is very hazardous as I know from personal experience in a work context!
An amusing exercise is to fit different models to such data (eg linear, quadratic, cubic) and see how rapidly the extrapolations diverge. There is of course no reason to be confident there are no higher order terms in the relationship.
I am trying to think what the source of the claim was that the longest mate was likely to be with a relatively small number of pieces (say nearer 0 than 32). Whoever it was sounded convincing, because previously I had the idea that the longest mate would be extremely long and involve a large number of pieces.
One relevant factor is that there are not so many positions with very large numbers of pieces. To have any promotion you need some captures, and you need a few to give you more than small number of possibilities for the material balance. I think John Tromp told me which number of pieces had the largest number of positions. Can't recall the details.
Could be related to the number of pieces on board that has the largest potential number of promotions?
If all sixteen pawns are off the board could they all have promoted?
If white's a-pawn and h-pawn each take twice towards the center and his b- pawn and g-pawn each take once towards the center then that's six captures and results in all the white pawns being on the four center files.
Then if black's d-pawn and e-pawn each take twice toward the side they're on and his c-pawn and f-pawn each take once toward their sides ....
then all eight black pawns can promote on the wings and white's pawns can all promote up through the center - while leaving each side's queen on board.
Result: each side ends up with 8 knights plus a queen each.
20 pieces on board.
But that couldn't be it. More pieces on board would have more promotions.
All pawns can promote there.
But would result in only 20 non-pawns on board at most.
If instead - white lost his a-pawn and h-pawn and black lost his d-pawn and e-pawn -
then there would be four fewer promotions but would leave 24 pieces on board.
All 12 pawns are passed and promotable. Both back ranks are clear.
Pawns don't need to be passed nor the back ranks to be clear to be promotable of course.
That one could result in as many as 24 non-pawns on board.
Maybe there's a way to get even more non-pawns on board and some members here know of it or find out or think of it in a few seconds or whatever.
There are only 4 data points on that graph. ...
Mathematicians have this strange habit of counting 0 ... 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 4. I think it must have something to do with von Neumann ordinals.
The data are the only reliable thing we currently have.
The "law" was formulated after the 3-4-5 Nalimov tables were produced and has so far correctly predicted the 6 and 7 man values.
There is no logical reason why extrapolation should work, but it's a commonly used scientific method for arriving at things like Boyle's law, Charle's law, Hooke's law etc. Five data points would always do at a pinch for your A level pracs for those things.
Each of those laws will break down at some point; half your mercury will finish up on the desktop or your spring will cease to be arcwise connected etc. Likewise I've remarked that Haworth's law cannot possibly continue to hold in generalised chess up to 64 men.
Nevertheless I would say it's our best guess over the range to 32 men so far, wild guess though it might be, because the tablebases are the only reliable body of data or proven theory. It would be nice to have more.
If you have a logical or scientific argument that, "the longest mate was likely to be with a relatively small number of pieces (say nearer 0 than 32)", then I would certainly be interested to hear it and may adjust my expectation as a result, but, "I heard it from someone once and found it convincing", doesn't cut it for the moment.
We already know it's not possible to solve this game, not worth trying!
Who already knows? Speak for yourself.
We know in fact that, with suitable definitions of "chess" and "solved", chess is solvable and in fact is already solved.
The question is whether it will ever be solved in a way that allows a human or chess engine to use the solution in a practical game.
Nobody on this thread so far has come up with a convincing argument that it won't, only that on certain questionable assumptions regarding the outcome it may be unlikely.
Possibly the answer you want is 25.
See https://kirill-kryukov.com/chess/counting-chess-endgames/.
But note that this did not justify @tygxc's assertion that "chess" reaches its maximum complexity at 26 men [sic] based on the number of (basic rules) positions, because he overlooked the fact that any game reaches at most one endgame classification with a given number of men, so 32 men would remain maximally complex on that basis.
No that's just supposed to be a jab at the people consistently interacting in this forum with long messages.
thx !...u gettit.