https://viplife.store/https://viplife.store/
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
https://viplife.store.
Mar 13, 2022
0
#1764
morphy1001 wrote:
In general.
NOT about silly errors
A gigantic portion of errors are 'blunders'. 'Silly' errors.
Anyway - my point continues to stand.
The theory that 'the game will end in a draw if nobody makes a mistake' can be disproven fast.
Because the game doesn't end in a draw if your flag goes down.
You can play as perfect as you like - but no draw once that time has run out first.
And that's the general figurative 'you'.
Its also never been proven as to whether each of white's 20 first moves would be draw - win or loss if both players play 'perfectly'.
And it might never be.
Sorry folks no such things as perfect play in a whole game in Chess. Just think about it for fifteen minutes.
Mar 13, 2022
0
#1766
morphy1001 wrote:
Sorry folks no such things as perfect play in a whole game in Chess. Just think about it for fifteen minutes.
Who said there was? No apology necessary.
Mar 13, 2022
0
#1768
By the way - consider Black's play in this game ...
and it doesn't even take fifteen seconds to consider it ...
g4 e5 f3 Qh4# checkmate.
Something 'imperfect' about black's play there? 
Mar 13, 2022
0
#1770
tygxc wrote:
#2166
"There are non-mathematicians and non-mathematicians.
You are obviously one of the latter."
I am pretty sure I know more about mathematics than any of you, including the man with the 2 degrees.
Mathematics has since ancient times been applied to solve all kinds of problems, not to demonstrate that nothing can be concluded.
I assume you're referring to Gödel there.
Induction and deduction are the two main pathways of any science.
Do you really think any of your 4 curves represents the fraction of decisive games versus time?
No, but I thought you, as the World's greatest living mathematician, might.
Coming back to deriving the error rate E from the fraction of decisive games D, it is obvious that E =~D provided D is small enough.
Proof:
At 1 min / move the paper gives D = 0.021.
Under the generally accepted hypothesis that chess is a draw a decisive game contains an odd number of errors.
Thus
D = E + E^3 + E^5 + E^7 + ... = E / (1 - E^2)
Thus
E^2 - 1 + E/D = 0
Thus
E = sqrt ((1 / 2D)^2 + 1) - 1 / 2D
Keying in
D = 0.021
yields
E = 0.020990747
Thus E =~D
quod erat demonstrandum
Par for all your "proofs". If you check in a situation where it can be measured as I did here you get:
Fraction of decisive games = 0.1 (under your new game rules with 3-fold repetition - 0.0 under your new game rules with 2-fold repetition. Smaller than in your sample in a game different from whichever you propose to solve.)
Error rate per game = 3.0 (under your new game rules with 3-fold repetition - 2.7 under competition rules - haven't bothered to work it out under your new game rules with 2-fold repetition.)
0.1 is approximately equal to 3.0?
Mar 13, 2022
0
#1771
playerafar wrote:
By the way - consider Black's play in this game ...
and it doesn't even take fifteen seconds to consider it ...
g4 e5 f3 Qh4# checkmate.
Something 'imperfect' about black's play there?
Chance it's a perfect game if the starting position's a win for Black.
Mar 13, 2022
0
#1772
playerafar wrote:
There's even a theory that every chess game would end in a draw if nobody makes a mistake.
That's never been proven and might never be proven ...
(want it Disproven right away? Lol ! Somebody doesn't make a mistake but they lose on the Clock ! )
Strictly speaking you can't lose on the clock under FIDE laws.
FIDE define the game as a physical game.
For example only art. 4 determines that players must move their own pieces, by mandating that if the player having the move touches an opponent's piece he must capture it, which can be done only by moving one of his own pieces.
The definition of 'legal move' in art. 3 doesn't say anything about the conditions under which it may be played, it defines 'legal move' for both players at any point. It is left to other rules (arts. 4 and 5) to determine if those 'legal" moves are legitimate.
The dead position rule (art. 5.2.2) states:
The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.
If the player having the move has less than time d/c on his clock, where d is the minimum diameter of the base of his chess pieces and c is the speed of light, then it is impossible for him to complete a move (the force required to complete the move would in any case exceed the shearing force of the piece or the fingers of the one hand with which he must make the move sometime earlier).
So whenever a player fails to complete the required number of moves in the allotted time according to art. 6.3.1 a dead position has occurred at some time strictly earlier terminating the game in a draw.
1c4Boom1-0 wrote:
so reading a novel and writing & reading forum posts about something are the same. good. people can talk about chess being solvable or unsolvable but this level.. is beyong the necessity. if you know too much this topic why dont you write a program, make a product instead of this. besides no one will read all of this.. thousands of pages will be lost here even if they had useful information. write a book, form a product.. so people can use. whats this?
Always gotta be someone to complain about wasted time with their own wasted time 
. Shoo. Go live your life and don't worry about other people's time spent.
Mar 13, 2022
0
#1774
I am sure we all feel there is far too little consideration of the relevance of the lack of unique simultaneity in relativistic space-time to the interpretation of the rules of chess.
[]
Mar 13, 2022
0
#1775
@btickler I never talked about time. It was all about the unnecessity of talking about something that much, which is not useful or anything. Too much information is wasted between pages. And why don't you make something useful if you all have that much information on the topic. I said. You are just twisting my words. Like almost anyone who disagrees.
Mar 13, 2022
0
#1776
tygxc wrote:
#2152
About your objectivity and honesty, then, maybe you want to comment this excerpt from the very paper on checkers you cited so much:
"With checkers done, the obvious question is whether chess is solvable. Checkers has roughly the square root of the number of positions in chess (somewhere in the 10⁴⁰ - 10⁵⁰ range). Given the effort required to solve checkers, chess will remain unsolved for a long time, barring the invention of new technology."
That was in 2007. The 10^40 - 10^50 range is no longer valid.
Schaeffer was talking about positions in the absence of the 50 move and triple repetition rules. The removal of these from FIDE's basic rules in 2017 serves only to make the figures correct for the basic game.
Nothing has happened in the meantime to invalidate that range as far as the basic rules game is concerned. Chess has not shrunk.
The papers by Tromp (10^44) and Gourion (10^37) are from 2021.
The figure 3 x 10^37 is for diagrams without excess promotions, and is not in any way relevant. It changes neither Schaeffer's range nor Tromp's estimate (circa 4 x 10^44), which also relates to the basic rules game.
The number of positions in your proposed game of basic rules + two and a Schrödinger's half fold repetition rule would be vastly greater, because then positions must be defined effectively by a pgn from a ply 0 position - different positions for different pgns leading to the same fen.
In those 15 years also computers have become faster and chess engines better, now 10^9 nodes/s.
Also progress has been made on the 7-men endgame table bases.
Most of the effort of Schaeffer was related to building his endgame table base.
Schaeffer himself also said:
”The one thing I’ve learned in all of this is to never underestimate the advances in technology”
https://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~jonathan/publications/ai_publications/checksolved.pdf
final line
Interesting to note from the paper you quote that checkers has not in fact been weakly solved, nor even fully ultra weakly solved.
Mar 13, 2022
0
#1777
I think you mean that the paper says checkers has not been strongly solved. Strategies for optimal play from the opening position are complete. This only meant about 10^14 calculations (so certainly not the full 10^20 positions). The 10 piece endgame tablebase for the solution has 39 trillion positions, which is between 10^13 and 10^14 positions.
Mar 13, 2022
0
#1778
@MARattigan
Quote from your post:
"Strictly speaking you can't lose on the clock under FIDE laws."
That doesn't sound right to me At All.
You play in a FIDE rated tournament.
You make 'perfect' moves - or maybe you don't.
Your opponent calls 'Flag' in a loud clear voice.
Because you've 'overstepped' on time. On the clock.
You're Done. Lost. Defeated. Fried. Clobbered. Eliminated.
Flattened. Deprived. Sent packing. Dismissed. Eclipsed. Diminished.
Fricasseed. Broiled. Squashed. Eviscerated. Dissected. Vivisected.
Same result as Checkmate.
1c4Boom1-0 wrote:
@btickler I never talked about time. It was all about the unnecessity of talking about something that much, which is not useful or anything. Too much information is wasted between pages. And why don't you make something useful if you all have that much information on the topic. I said. You are just twisting my words. Like almost anyone who disagrees.
Ermm...you cannot really talk about the uselessness of anything unless you first consider it a waste of time. There's nothing useful to be done on actually solving chess at this time...the only useful outcome of this thread is to dispel that very notion.
Telling people to make better use of their time implies that you know better what somebody wants/needs from their life than they do. We already have enough posters that think their words are correct, but always twisted by everybody else that reads them, thanks anyway ...
Mar 13, 2022
0
#1780
playerafar wrote:
By the way - consider Black's play in this game ...
and it doesn't even take fifteen seconds to consider it ...
g4 e5 f3 Qh4# checkmate.
Something 'imperfect' about black's play there?
Well, both Leela and Stockfish prefer 1. ... d5 there.
I just accidentally left Leela analysing 1. g4 for a couple of hours on a GPU and its evaluation was 69% for 1. ...d5 and only 59.5% for 1. ...e5, a surprisingly large difference.
https://viplife.store/