TheGrobe, what the heck is your avatar?
True or false? Chess will never be solved! why?
Sort:
A white pepper.
sorry to be off topic but, from all the things in the world, why did you choose a white pepper?
Purity. Clearly.
Well, that and flavour.
Added to my quest log: "Taste a white pepper"
AlxMaster wrote:
Added to my quest log: "Taste a white pepper"
A small taste:
Though I probably should have posted this as it's much, much more relevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBaqh75Mi9s
And to think
You got a grip
Look at yourself
Your lips are like two flaps of fat
They go front and back and flappity flap
tmodel66 wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
Umm, no, I don't think that's what he said at all. When did calculus come into this exactly anyway?
This problem is one of a connected graph of almost unfathomable complexity.
Do we have to prove calculus to your satisfaction now? To make a point, it is convenient to be able to be the arbiter of all definitions, acceptable and unacceptable scientific procedures, things that must be proven and things that can be theorized while also having foreknowledge of the future technological capabilities of human existence.
Amazing - all that and an 1187 live chess rating. You're a bad man!
I hear ya' man! I was going to have this guy who calls himself a dentist fill one of my teeth, but then I found out that he doesn't even know how the horsie moves!
What a fraud.
Yes, half of the misunderstanding anyway, despite the fact that it's an established objective definition.
The other half is not being able to fathom the sheer immensity of the solution.
There is no solution. It's too large to calculate or really to even comprehend. If there was one, it would be a 32 piece table-base.
This is not a problem that idealism can solve. It is not a problem that pruning can solve, and it is not a problem that technology can solve.
Chess is unsolvable because the board is too big, and the pieces move in too complicated a fashion, with regard to the amount of matter in the universe.
Whatever you may think, the computing power of humanity is not infinite, nor does it approach infinity as time does.
proving it 100% as a draw cannot be done as there are just too many possibilities.
However if you want proof on a practical basis then the circumstantial evidence is 99.94% convining to masters and above that it is a draw with best play on both sides
Salmoncrusher wrote:
Whatever you may think, the computing power of humanity is not infinite, nor does it approach infinity as time does.
Optimism, on the other hand, appears to be boundless.
ponz111 wrote:
proving it 100% as a draw cannot be done as there are just too many possibilities.
However if you want proof on a practical basis then the circumstantial evidence is 99.94% convining to masters and above that it is a draw with best play on both sides
Source ?
Especially after spouting a number like 99.94% (and not 99.95% or 99.93%, nor 99.99% which could have been deemed a rhetorical effect).
Oh, and I will not waste my time answering Atlec's ad hominem, if he does not want to take the time to understand what I write.
Atlec wrote:
Irontiger wrote:
I am pretty sure theGrobe is delighted to be told he has no clue by someone who demonstrate how this statement applies to him.
What btickler is suggesting is that somehow (throw a few buzzwords like "statistical analysis" here) we will manage to teach the computer to play the best move in every situation without having to actually calculate the continuation until the mate (or the 7-men database for that matter), by managing some very clever positional analysis.
Don't you think that if such a thing were even remotely possible, Houdini and others would already be perfect players ?
And your link has absolutely nothing to do with your argumentation - the underlying algorithm will still be a minimax (maybe refined) thingie.
It's very popular among non-scientists to dismiss mainstream science because they believe they are going to be the next Copernicus or Marconi. But Copernicus had some solid evidence for his theory (and additionally was very acquainted with the previous mainstream theory, which you obviously are not), and Marconi demonstrated radio transmission in his room at 12. You just have the intuition that all others have got it wrong.
I love how pompous Irontiger is. He just flails around like the big man on the forums pretending that he is the expert in every subject.
Why would anyone care about anything but a weak solution for chess? Clearly as player that's all that matters.
Also it seems that a lot of people here are spouting off science that they hardly understand to prop up their terrible and unsound arguements. Chess will be solved within our lifetimes and that the only reason it isn't is because the processing power of computers available to us are doing more important things that solving a game.
Processing power isn't the bottleneck. No realistic predictions for processing power in the next century would solve chess using the current methods.
Atlec wrote:
. . .
a lot of people here are spouting off science that they hardly understand
. . .
Chess will be solved within our lifetimes and that the only reason it isn't is because the processing power of computers available to us are doing more important things that solving a game.
a lot of people here are spouting off science that they hardly understand
. . .
Chess will be solved within our lifetimes and that the only reason it isn't is because the processing power of computers available to us are doing more important things that solving a game.
Hehehehehe.
But what if we change the definition of proof? That could work, right?
If he can provide a probabilistic argument that yields result like "that position is a win for White with probability X %" with a calculated (not estimated) value of X over -say- 99.9%, I will consider it not as a proof, but still as valuable information.
But as far as he has gone for now, it's "we will find a way to fiddle the things, and be aproximatively sure of the result". A bit weak to my taste.
It's not even ultra-weak.