@tygxc is not 'trying to offend' (unlike the other guy)
but there's his pattern of not letting anybody tell him anything -
combined with the immortal and extremely revealing "know more than any of you".
He is not trying to be offensive per se. Not his goal apparently.
But it ends up amounting to the same thing. 
He's doing better than the other guy also - in the sense that he doesn't have the obsessions with chess ratings and his own rating that the other constantly manifests.
As to what @tygxc 's goal is here or if there is one ... perhaps its to do with 'proof of solution'.
'Solved'. And 'proof'. Which has legitimate connection to the forum topic.
I keep wanting to give him benefit of 'doubt' about Everything -
because he does try to be civil. ('pretty sure I know more than any of you' ... is there a 'paradox' there ?)
Chess will never be solved, here's why
#2268
Here is again the shortest proof game for the first legal Tromp sample.
Its accuracy is near 0%. You can add some moves and/or change the move order, but that changes nothing: the accuracy stays near 0%.
As for the other position it is obvious that white must promote his pawn: preferably to a queen, or else to a bishop, or to a rook, or to a knight. What does that prove? Of course promotion to a queen is the move.
#2270
"Does your reference to 3-fold repetition above mean that you've decided on the game you want to solve or are you reserving the option of switching to 2-fold repetition should it prove convenient?"
++ It does not matter. For simplicity of argument keep it 3-fold as it is written in the Laws of Chess. In practice I would use 2-fold to save the pointless extra repetition. If 2-fold repetition is the optimal for white and for black, then so is 3-fold, and 4-fold, and 5-fold. The result would be the same even if the Laws of Chess were ammended to 7-fold repetition. 3-fold repetition is just a practical rule, that allows to save some time on the clock. For example in this game black did repeat 2-fold to reach the time control at move 40.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1084375
#2270
"Does your reference to 3-fold repetition above mean that you've decided on the game you want to solve or are you reserving the option of switching to 2-fold repetition should it prove convenient?"
++ It does not matter. For simplicity of argument keep it 3-fold as it is written in the Laws of Chess. In practice I would use 2-fold to save the pointless extra repetition. If 2-fold repetition is the optimal for white and for black, then so is 3-fold, and 4-fold, and 5-fold. The result would be the same even if the Laws of Chess were ammended to 7-fold repetition. 3-fold repetition is just a practical rule, that allows to save some time on the clock. For example in this game black did repeat 2-fold to reach the time control at move 40.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1084375
You do have an appallingly slapdash approach.
In the game you mention Black won with the 3-fold repetition rule in force. With a 2-fold repetition rule the game would have been drawn.
Is that what you mean by "The result would be the same"?
But can we now pin you down on the game you propose to solve as basic rules + 3-fold repetition rule. If your computation has to check with you what rules it's supposed to use before each move, you're never going to reach 10^9 nodes a second, even on a cloud cuckoo machine.
#2271
"there's his pattern of not letting anybody tell him anything"
++ Oh yes, for example I changed my phrase 'excess promotions' to the longer 'promotions to pieces not previously captured' because of your remark. I also multiplied the 10^37 by 10 to include positions with 3 or 4 queens. I also formulated more precise definitions of some terms.
'the immortal and extremely revealing "know more than any of you".'
++ It is not something I would normally do. I do not boast about academic titles, careers, publications, ratings... but I got provoked by being accused of not knowing mathematics. At the same time somebody with 2 degrees or somebody working at an university gets qualified as 'very knowledgeable'. I am pretty sure I know more about mathematics than any here on this forum thread. That then gets ridiculed as if I qualified myself as 'the greatest living mathematician' which surely I am not.
"As to what @tygxc 's goal is here"
++ I have only one goal: to discuss weakly solving chess and GM Sveshnikov's claim.
GM Sveshnikov was the visionary who made his bold prediction.
I only and modestly try to verify it and I still believe he was right indeed.
#2274
"In the game you mention Black won with the 3-fold repetition rule in force. With a 2-fold repetition rule the game would have been drawn."
++ No: if the rule were 2-fold, then black would not have repeated the moves, or he might have lost on time. If the rule were 5-fold repetition, then black might have repeated the moves 4 times, to gain time on the clock and check and double check his calculation.
There it is yet again:
" I am pretty sure I know more about mathematics than any here on this forum thread. "
With such an attitude - could anybody tell such a person anything at all?
Is it worse than the obsession with personal chess ratings of 'the other' ?
It could be. Could be even worse. Depending on the context.
#2277
I cannot help it. That is how it is.
#2274
"In the game you mention Black won with the 3-fold repetition rule in force. With a 2-fold repetition rule the game would have been drawn."
++ No: if the rule were 2-fold, then black would not have repeated the moves, or he might have lost on time. If the rule were 5-fold repetition, then black might have repeated the moves 4 times, to gain time on the clock and check and double check his calculation.
So in your judgement he'd have played different moves depending on whether it'e 2-fold, 3-fold etc.
Is that what you mean by " It does not matter"?
#2277
I cannot help it. That is how it is.
Hahahahhaahhaah.
Honesty !!
#2268
Here is again the shortest proof game for the first legal Tromp sample.
Its accuracy is near 0%. You can add some moves and/or change the move order, but that changes nothing: the accuracy stays near 0%.
As for the other position it is obvious that white must promote his pawn: preferably to a queen, or else to a bishop, or to a rook, or to a knight. What does that prove? Of course promotion to a queen is the move.
Rook or knight would lose.
The point is, according to your own description of your method your computation must consider the resulting position where White has two dark square bishops. Precisely what you say will never happen.
#2280
"So in your judgement he'd have played different moves depending on whether it'e 2-fold, 3-fold etc. Is that what you mean by " It does not matter"?"
++ They played 40 moves in 2.5 hours. Of course Kotov used all his available time calculating 21 moves deep before he sacrificed his queen 30...Qxh3+. So he took advantage of the 3-fold repetition rule by repeating twice to reach move 40 without losing on time. If it had been a 2-fold repetition rule, then he would not have repeated twice, or he might have lost on time, or he might not have sacrificed his queen.
When I say it does not matter I mean it does not matter for solving chess. If repeating twice are the optimal moves, then repeating 3-fold are the optimal moves as well.
#2282
"I think rook or knight would lose." ++ Yes, that is correct.
"The point is, according to your own description of your method your computation must consider the resulting position where White has two dark square bishop's. Precisely what you say will never happen."
++ I do not count positions with two dark square bishops in my assessment of the feasibility of weakly solving chess.
Of course I allow any underpromotions that may arise during the actual weakly solving of chess.
This is by the way no counterexample to the heuristic of never underpromoting to a bishop unless to avoid stalemate. Promoting to a queen is still the simplest and best way to draw.
"A heuristic (/hjʊˈrɪstɪk/; from Ancient Greek εὑρίσκω (heurískō) 'I find, discover'), or heuristic technique, is any approach to problem solving or self-discovery that employs a practical method that is not guaranteed to be optimal, perfect, or rational, but is nevertheless sufficient for reaching an immediate, short-term goal or approximation. Where finding an optimal solution is impossible or impractical, heuristic methods can be used to speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution. Heuristics can be mental shortcuts that ease the cognitive load of making a decision."
'self-discovery'. Lol. 'Ease the cognitive load'.
But 'decision' seems to have already been made.
This is about Sveshnikov ?
Its about 'fighting for Sveshnikov' ?
Interesting that 'heuristic' can refer to 'self-discovery'.
Plus we got a few posts ago 'can't help it'.
Anyway - 'heuristics' would certainly be relevant to the forum subject..
And - to a big percentage of the postings so far.
#2280
"So in your judgement he'd have played different moves depending on whether it'e 2-fold, 3-fold etc. Is that what you mean by " It does not matter"?"
++ They played 40 moves in 2.5 hours. Of course Kotov used all his available time calculating 21 moves deep before he sacrificed his queen 30...Qxh3+. So he took advantage of the 3-fold repetition rule by repeating twice to reach move 40 without losing on time. If it had been a 2-fold repetition rule, then he would not have repeated twice, or he might have lost on time, or he might not have sacrificed his queen.
When I say it does not matter I mean it does not matter for solving chess. If repeating twice are the optimal moves, then repeating 3-fold are the optimal moves as well.
Repeating any number of times does not matter in a weak solution of chess, because the repetitions can simply be removed.
Whether it matters in computing a weak solution of chess depends on the method you use.
If you use a tablebase generation method it doesn't matter.
If you use your proposal it does matter.
That's because SF14, your vehicle, will repeat moves (possibly optimally) in won drawn or losing positions. (Not more than twice if it evaluates alternative moves as winning).
For example the 1024 sec/move example in the SF14 v SF14 games I posted here was the only one that finished correctly in a win from the initial winning position. It was played with a 3-fold repetition rule in force. Had it been a 2-fold repetition rule the result would have been a draw.
"If repeating twice are the optimal moves, then repeating 3-fold are the optimal moves as well."
Unfortunately typical of your reasoning. White's moves 4 in the 8 sec/move and 256 sec/move games in the same link repeat twice and are perfect in your 3-fold variant. Had he repeated 3-fold on move 6 that would have been a blunder.
#2282
"I think rook or knight would lose." ++ Yes, that is correct.
"The point is, according to your own description of your method your computation must consider the resulting position where White has two dark square bishop's. Precisely what you say will never happen."
++ I do not count positions with two dark square bishops in my assessment of the feasibility of weakly solving chess.
Yes, I realise you don't. I'm just saying you should.
Of course I allow any underpromotions that may arise during the actual weakly solving of chess.
So you allow them but you don't count them in your assessment. Does that not mean you finish up with the wrong assessment?
This is by the way no counterexample to the heuristic of never underpromoting to a bishop unless to avoid stalemate. Promoting to a queen is still the simplest and best way to draw.
I wasn't discussing heuristics, only the validity of your assessment.
There were two different papers by Schaeffer about solving checkers. One mentioned 10^9 nodes, the other 10^7 nodes each needing 10^7 positions. Hence the confusion.
Both those numbers (10⁹ and 10⁷) were referred to the proof size, not the number of nodes searched and I think you know it well now as before. You have been saying that only 10⁹ or 10⁷ nodes had been searched to solve checkers.
I try to explain in a way that is understandable to all. I answer all questions to the best of my ability.
And is it impossible that's not enough to make it understandable, not only to the less gifted?
"there is no conspiracy or a "gang" against you"
++ Most of my arguments get just met by some insults, some ridicule, some sarcasm, some unsound counterargument, plain denial, some trolling.
You stil put many things together, as if they were questionable the same.
I have no problem at all with different opinions, as long as it stays civil and constructive.
There is no possibility to construct anything, as long as you think that any other either cannot or doesn't want to understand you. You simply do not accept that basically all the others may have the same opinion about your theories and you attribute that to "ganging". That's a clear sign of hubris imho.
"It's because your definitions and the relationships between them are not clear at all"
++ I try to define as clearly as possible. I try to indicate the relationships as clearly as I can. I am aware that my reasoning may sometimes be too succinct for some to understand, but I do not want to make my posts too long either.
As I said, you exclude the possibility that your reasoning may be impossible to understand for anyone.
"As for the relationship between ratings and the topic, imho there is basically none."
++ Basically little. A little bit maybe: there is or rather was a relationship between chess playing strength and education in science. Anderssen, Steinitz, Lasker, Euwe were mathematicians. Capablanca, Botvinnik, Vidmar were engineers.
Capablanca did not graduate at university, if I am not mistaken, but yes he did study engineering. Nonetheless Tal didn't, for example; he studied psychology, if I recall well. Morphy and Alekhine were lawyers, Kasparov has a degree in literature, I think. Why do you mention only facts which support your theories, when you can easily find others that do not? And I hope you believe my word that I have been outplayed at chess by people who had far less scientific education (and understanding) than me.
That however is not what I implied. Rather like: we cannot beat this guy in chess and neither in science, but surely we are better at insulting, ridiculising...
Incredible. You really think you "beat" all the others here at science, which is about objectivity, when you, a single subject, entitle yourself and yourself only to evaluate how much scientific you are... And for sure I do not see this thread as a contest; you do, and you are so confident this is the only way to deal with such things, that you think the others do the same. A true narcissist. @playerafar was right, then, you behave like an unscrupulous lawyer: first the win, then the truth.
"their supposedly better evaluation function"
++ I do not believe in an evaluation function to solve chess, only in deep calculation and using heuristics derived from human and engine play. The evaluation function will always fall short. Only deep calculation until the endgame table base or an earlier 3-fold repetition of position is reliable.
I edited my previous post to make myself clearer: you think you can use your supposedly better than ours evaluation function, to understand how much of the search space can be cut down, preventing any further search in that excluded part, in order to speed up the process. AFAIK no one out there (not only in this thread) supports your approach, because it is fallacious by faulty generalization.
Any chance of stopping bickering and answering some of the outstanding questions?
Does your reference to 3-fold repetition above mean that you've decided on the game you want to solve or are you reserving the option of switching to 2-fold repetition should it prove convenient?