Good. :fist
True or false? Chess will never be solved! why?
Sort:
Oct 1, 2021
0
#1243
Optimissed wrote:
Euclid lived in primitive times, when demonstrating even very simple and obvious proofs would be helpful in educating people. Of course, your m.o. when arguing here is to invent things and try to pass them off as facts. Not really very honest, are you.
In the case of an isosceles triangle, no proof that base angles are equal is necessary, because it's obvious and such a proof is only useful in demonstrating how to construct formal proofs.
People haven't changed. Simple and obvious proofs are still helpful in educating people.
No doubt then, as now, the unfortunate fact was and is that some people are just ineducable.
Oct 1, 2021
0
#1245
Euclid was one of the smartest people ever to live. He got it so right, his books were used for teaching until modern history. To me this elevates him above other great minds of his period, most of whom made errors by faults in their thinking. (Although, having said that, I am not sure I can find fault with Eratosthenes, another hero of mine).
Euclid understood something that Optimissed appears to have forgotten - that proving intuitively "obvious" things is worthwhile. Of course, he went on to build on this by proving a lot of things few would find obvious even now: his work was quite extensive.
One interesting example of why Euclid was right was where he didn't get to the final answer. He thought the parallel postulate might be unnecessary, as the ways in which two lines could intersect in real space was "obvious". He tried to prove this from his other axioms but never could achieve this and reluctantly accepted the need for the parallel postulate as an axiom. It was not until the 19th century that the relevance of this was realised when mathematicians discovered that two alternatives to the parallel postulate resulted in spherical and hyperbolic geometry to complement the "euclidean" geometry of Euclid. And a few decades later the latter geometry was found to (literally) everyone's surprise to be the one that described space-time locally.
Taking the parallel postulate to be "obvious" without accepting it as an independent axiom would have blocked this advance forever. The non-trivialiality of this is indicated by the more than 2000 years before someone built on this insight!
Some were too busy building silly pyramids and the likes.
Oct 2, 2021
0
#1247
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
..
Chess can never be solved because it would have already been solved in the past 8,000 years, or at least there will be progress to solving chess.
Why would people spend six thousand years or more trying to solve a game that hadn't been invented?
Oct 2, 2021
0
#1249
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Euclid was one of the smartest people ever to live. He got it so right, his books were used for teaching until modern history. To me this elevates him above other great minds of his period, most of whom made errors by faults in their thinking. (Although, having said that, I am not sure I can find fault with Eratosthenes, another hero of mine).
Euclid understood something that Optimissed appears to have forgotten - that proving intuitively "obvious" things is worthwhile.>>
As I pointed out, you hopeless great mutt, to demonstrate methods of constructing formal proofs. As usual, you're saying the same thing and pretending it's different. You and Rattigan should get together more often.
No, not only that. Also because "obvious" things are not always true, as I explained with a crucial example.
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
Chess will be a solved is what knewbs say who will never become good at chess and always suck.
This is a good example of this thread being pointless because most of the time I can't figure out what definitions of "solved" people are working with. I have no idea of how to define it to have this post make any sense to me.
Elbow_Jobertski wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
Chess will be a solved is what knewbs say who will never become good at chess and always suck.
This is a good example of this thread being pointless because most of the time I can't figure out what definitions of "solved" people are working with. I have no idea of how to define it to have this post make any sense to me.
It's defined like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game
btickler wrote:
Elbow_Jobertski wrote:
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
Chess will be a solved is what knewbs say who will never become good at chess and always suck.
This is a good example of this thread being pointless because most of the time I can't figure out what definitions of "solved" people are working with. I have no idea of how to define it to have this post make any sense to me.
It's defined like this:
I mean, I know what it means, but even given that there is a pretty wide range of what it means. Strong, weak, etc. Someone suggested that searching the game tree wasn't necessary to solve a game and I'm trying to wrap my head around that one. This thread is the chess version of arguing whether golf is a sport.
Elbow_Jobertski wrote:
I mean, I know what it means, but even given that there is a pretty wide range of what it means. Strong, weak, etc. Someone suggested that searching the game tree wasn't necessary to solve a game and I'm trying to wrap my head around that one. This thread is the chess version of arguing whether golf is a sport.
Maybe you should dive into the other thread that's much longer. Weakly solved is the consensus definition for the discussion and for all previous efforts.
The chess/golf is a sport thread is pseudo-scientific garbage by comparison 
.
Oct 2, 2021
0
#1254
So a few more months of bickering, what's the consensus / argument about these days?
I haven't seen ponz in a while.
llama47 wrote:
So a few more months of bickering, what's the consensus / argument about these days?
I haven't seen ponz in a while.
He hangs out on the thread he controls, which is why he split it off in the first place. But yes, I'm worried that things have finally caught up to him :/.
llama47 wrote:
So a few more months of bickering, what's the consensus / argument about these days?
I haven't seen ponz in a while.
I really have no idea. Mainly fanciful ideas trying to bring the number of possible positions down to a number that is still probably beyond any practical possibility and/or shading the idea of solved into something that doesn't mean searching the whole game tree because of the prohibitive numbers.
Really the most reasonable argument I can come up for it being solved would be to believe in the existence of an omniscient higher being and at that point why not. It's a good way around the practical issues.
#1267
This is how checkers was solved.
http://library.msri.org/books/Book29/files/schaeffer.pdf
It was not necessary to search the whole game tree. See figure 1.
True or false? Chess will never be solved! why?
True. Because chess is the game of the gods/goddesses!
Oct 3, 2021
0
#1259
The normal eight year old can solve tic-tac-toe. Checkers is no more complicated, except the math is deeper.
It was you who initially laboured the point.
Euclid thought it necessary to prove, as have generations of maths teachers. Though a proof is relatively trivial, I wouldn't, from inspection of the "proofs" you have previously posted and looking at your comments on defining "equigonal" triangles etc., have much confidence in your being capable of producing one.