uh no i just came in as i still follow this thread but i am not going to be involved
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Optimissed wrote:
I agree. I have by far the higher IQ. But you shouldn't talk about such things. It could annoy someone or even make them feel bad. I'm sure you wouldn't want that so don't do it.
Quoting for posterity.
Mar 16, 2022
0
#1904
Not sure it can compete with 'pretty sure I know more' by 'the other guy'.
Maybe they need to 'peer review' each other.
#2337
"That's not weakly solving chess."
++ It is. That is how Checkers and Losing Chess have been solved.
Mar 16, 2022
0
#1906
One's argument: "I know more ..."
the other: "but my chess rating (uh oh he's lower) and IQ ..."
Result - they're both wrong - and others display much more accuracy.
Speaking of ratings - a guy who just posted here a few minutes ago - he's rated in the 2400's. Just mentioning. But he's not like either of those two.
Lasker - Bottvinnik - Euwe ... didn't let the game beat them.
Fischer - it didn't work out so well ...
Mar 16, 2022
0
#1907
btickler wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
btickler wrote:
...
10^120 possible games including all legal paths ...
Can you stop quoting that please?
It's Shannon's approximation of the number of 40 move games with an average of 30 moves per ply, Nothing at all to do with the number of legal games.
It's misinterpreted all over the internet (and obvious b*llocks).
Bad enough with @tygxc trying to swamp the internet with the fact that there are 10^2 legal chess positions.
I am not really concerned if you don't like the Shannon Number. Unlike, say, Kasparov's purported 180+ IQ, the Shannon Number was the accepted estimate for decades. So listing the progression from 10^120 to 10^44.5 followed by the bogus cuts to 10^36 and 10^17 holds up well, because that's exactly how this has progressed historically .
I don't mind the Shannon number as long as it refers to what Shannon meant it represent.
I don't know who "accepted" it as an estimate of the number of legal games. Presumably someone who hadn't read Shannon's paper properly. "Accepted" is not necessarily the same as "correct".
The fact is it's out on a scale similar to @tygxc's number of legal positions..
And apart from that it's now infinite under basic rules, (but not for decades - only since 2017).
There is no progression from 10^120 to 10^44.5. Tromp doesn't use Shannon's number.
It is simply misinformation and antisocial to propagate it. It's already been quoted at least three times in this thread alone as the number of legal games.
Mar 16, 2022
0
#1908
playerafar wrote:
I continue to maintain that the repetition rule and the 50 move rule are sidelines compared with issues like whether forced checkmate is available in a game.
...
But whether or not forced checkmate is available in a game (and what moves achieve it) depends on whether or not the rules are in force in many cases.
So how can the former be sidelines and the latter not?
Mar 16, 2022
0
#1909
tygxc wrote:
#2291
"(i) If you add moves and/or change the move order some people might say that changes something by definition." ++ But the accuracy stays near 0%.
"(ii) You don't prove the accuracy is near 0." ++ I leave that for you to verify.
(iii) You don't prove if you add some moves and/or change the move order, the accuracy stays near 0%. ++ Just try and see for yourself.
"I'm sure as the World's strongest grandmaster it won't take you long."
++ I am no grandmaster, I never said that.
Restating what you're meant to prove and inviting me to prove it myself don't meet the challenge.
I hope (possibly forlornly) that you can understand that.
The challenge was to prove or convincingly demonstrate that a single position in Tromp's sample could not be reached by a game with >50% accuracy.
You haven't even managed the latter for the game you actually suggest for the position you actually suggest. You have rather a long way to go.
(It's not relevant to the topic, of course, because most of the play you will generate with your proposed method won't have an accuracy >50% anyway and accuracy is not a requirement for a solution - it's just for interest.)
MARattigan wrote:
I don't mind the Shannon number as long as it refers to what Shannon meant it represent.
I don't know who "accepted" it as an estimate of the number of legal games. Presumably someone who hadn't read Shannon's paper properly. "Accepted" is not necessarily the same as "correct".
The fact is it's out on a scale similar to @tygxc's number of legal positions..
And apart from that it's now infinite under basic rules, (but not for decades - only since 2017).
There is no progression from 10^20 to 10^44.5. Tromp doesn't use Shannon's number.
It is simply misinformation and antisocial to propagate it. It's already been quoted at least three times in this thread alone as the number of legal games.
You have an interesting definition of antisocial 
. If you are counting occurrences, then perhaps it's a sticking point with you, but that's not anti-social behavior on my part.
There's nothing wrong with it. There's no direct progression, nor is there any real propagation. It's an observation that makes a point about somebody's methodology, not an attempted proof.
Mar 16, 2022
0
#1911
Well, there's nothing wrong with it apart from the index 120, I suppose. Nothing wrong with @tygxc's estimates on that basis either.
MARattigan wrote:
Well, there's nothing wrong with it apart from the index 20, I suppose. Nothing wrong with @tygxc's estimates on that basis either.
There's never been anything wrong with him initially proposing them...that's not where the problem lies.
Mar 16, 2022
0
#1913
A lot of people come up with invalid figures. The problem is continuing to post them when they've been proved wrong. The internet spreads them very quickly.
Mar 16, 2022
0
#1914
"It is simply misinformation and antisocial to propagate it."
But he doesn't see it that way. The guy doing it.
He's not going to. Not going to see it that way.
Instead - its 'knows more' and vindicates 'Sveshnikov'.
Plus - the soft guy hard guy stuff is making him look good again.
The other guy had gone quiet for a while.
Neither of them seems to realize that 'am better' or 'know more' is part of the mismatch where the others always come out on top.
Even without intending any 'contest'.
Mar 16, 2022
0
#1915
I was referring the ubiquitous "number of chess games = 10^120". I think in this case @tygxc is blameless.
Mar 16, 2022
0
#1916
MARattigan wrote:
playerafar wrote:
I continue to maintain that the repetition rule and the 50 move rule are sidelines compared with issues like whether forced checkmate is available in a game.
...
But whether or not forced checkmate is available in a game (and what moves achieve it) depends on whether or not the rules are in force in many cases.
So how can the former be sidelines and the latter not?
Its still a sideline. You've assigned an interpretation of that word not intended by me.
Apparently the 'authorities' have misinterpreted castling as a sideline - but shouldn't.
If you consider more carefully the definition of checkmate on the board - you may understand this better.
Its not that simple though.
That's why I was careful to qualify in my posts about the mistakes of binary A or B in 'solving'.
I also pointed out that the 50 move rule could be addressed from the position from which the count starts.
In every position considered -the computer could address the availability of checkmate within 50 - or beyond 50 - or beyond the default computer time allotment for the computer.
Three results - instead of multiplying the positions by 100 ply.
I addressed those and other points several posts back - but you seem to have skipped them.
Do you really think every single position should be multiplied by 100 because of possible relevance to the 50 move rule?
Yes I know you didn't say that. But the question is put anyway.
I'm not claiming its valid or invalid. The idea of that 100.
If you're saying that the other side's strategy is affected in that the issue and result depends on whether they can delay checkmate and captures and pawn moves to satisfy a 50 move draw and that therefore affects 'solved' ...
then you could confirm that.
I think that's what you're saying. Just not sure.
hey lol
Mar 16, 2022
0
#1918
playerafar wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
playerafar wrote:
I continue to maintain that the repetition rule and the 50 move rule are sidelines compared with issues like whether forced checkmate is available in a game.
...
But whether or not forced checkmate is available in a game (and what moves achieve it) depends on whether or not the rules are in force in many cases.
So how can the former be sidelines and the latter not?
Its still a sideline. You've misinterpreted that word.
Apparently the 'authorities' have misinterpreted castling as a sideline - but shouldn't.
FIDE doesn't refer to castling as a sideline - not in the laws at any rate. You'll need to explain that.
If you consider more carefully the definition of checkmate on the board - you may understand this better.
OK I've considered it and I'm not getting any closer. You'll have to explain that too.
Its not that simple though.
That's why I was careful to qualify in my posts about the mistakes of binary A or B in 'solving'.
Sorry, missed binary A and B. Can you point out the post or explain again please.
I also pointed out that the 50 move rule could be addressed from the position from which the count starts.
That I agree.
In every position considered -the computer could address the availability of checkmate within 50 - or beyond 50 - or beyond the default computer time allotment for the computer.
Three results - instead of multiplying the positions by 100 ply.
Not unless you define "position" to mean only situations occurring when an irreversible move is made. This would be completely different from conventional usage. What would you call the situations following moves in between such "positions" that are not irreversible?
When there is a 50 move rule included in the game under consideration, there are different results or different move sequences depending on the number of ply since a ply count 0 position.
I would call those situations "positions" and regard the ply count as a relevant aspect of a position when the 50 move rule is in effect and the moves following the last ply count 0 position also as a relevant aspect of a position when the 3-fold repetition rule is in effect. By "relevant aspect" I mean an aspect that alters the possible continuations from a position.
This, I believe, is in accordance with common usage and would correspond with nodes in the state space in game theoretic jargon. (So would relate directly to the dubious figures @tygxc produces for these).
But I think for any sensible analysis of the competition rules game you need to drop any considerations of clocks and arbiters. It's probably better to refer to the pre-2017 basic rules game.
I addressed those and other points several posts back - but you seem to have skipped them.
I did find some of the content hard to follow and skipped some of your posts. Perhaps after the clarifications of my own understanding here you could produce a simpler argument.
Do you really think every single position should be multiplied by 100 because of possible relevance to the 50 move rule?
No. I think on the contrary you are dividing the number of positions to arrive at a board layout + specified side to move, which is not a position.
Yes I know you didn't say that. But the question is put anyway.
And answered.
I'm not claiming its valid or invalid. The idea of that 100.
If you're saying that the other side's strategy is affected in that the issue and result depends on whether they can delay checkmate and captures and pawn moves to satisfy a 50 move draw and that therefore affects 'solved' ...
then you could confirm that.
I think that's what you're saying. Just not sure.
Confirmed - I posted examples for you here.
I reproduce them.
The positions shown are not the same under competition rules.
If you try each of them on the analysis board you will see exactly why not.
The positions are also not the same under the rules of @tygxc's new game consisting of pre-2017 basic rules chess with the 50 move rule excised.
Note that both positions have been fully specified, that is I have provide a pgn from ply count 0 position - a fen doesn't fully describe a position under either competition rules or @tygxc's new game.
Optimissed wrote:
No problem. If you don't want anybody to look like a fool, perhaps you should persuade your friend or ally playerafar not to make general comparisons between the intellectual abilities of contributors here. Such comparisons could end in embarrassment and that would be a shame. He's too far gone to be embarrassed about anything so maybe have a word with him? Obviously, if he tells me that there's no comparison between the abilities of any person here and my own and yet he's got it the wrong way round, I could ignore it and wait for another contributor to correct him and ask him not to be so bad mannered. However, that isn't going to happen, is it. So I just told the truth, which most people outside this jolly group won't find at all surprising in its content.
What does it mean in terms of intellect when somebody is repeatedly told something, like "these two don't get along" or "these people are not part of the same group", but it never sinks in?
Mar 16, 2022
0
#1920
Chess ratings - IQ - degrees - 'no comparison' - the 'cabal' - all such tactics are pathetic and actually intellectually feeble.
while at every instance its like its a mismatch every time ...
the 'am better - know more' duo score zero .. others: 2000 or whatever.
Maybe we'll also get 'you're either for me or against me' attempts at imposition - digital A or B again.
'Infighting'. Claims about cliques and cabals while desperately trying to form them himself. Projections of his projections.
Complaining about the situations he keeps causing for himself.
It appears to be unique in the forums.
woah cant believe this is still on
Hi ! Welcome to the forum !
Do you have a theory as to what the 'finale' might look like ?
Scenarios ?
As to what the 'end of discussion' would look like in the forum?
The subject of 'solving' chess connects up with regular chess much more than people might think.
There's over 50,000 tactics puzzles on the website.
That's right. 50,,000 plus. Each with its own discussion forum. Yes !
Millions of members. Trying to 'solve'.
Many millions (hundreds of millions - probably billions now) of attempts on the puzzles - each player trying to 'solve'. 'Solving' and 'how to solve' being central issues.
There's a lot of 'solve' in chess. Its like - a commodity. Or privilege.