Just simply telling yourself that something cannot be done is a pretty significant obstacle to actually doing it. It doesn't really much matter what the task is.
A much bigger obstacle is when it actually cannot be done 
. Let's try to be practical here, not platitudinous...
The Wright brothers also faced obstacles and ignored people such as Ernest Archdeacon.
Ernest has pretty much been forgotten about.😳
The Wright brothers also faced obstacles and ignored people such as Ernest Archdeacon.
Ernest has pretty much been forgotten about.😳
Let's be clear about this...you're no Wright brother in this scenario, and I'm not refuting anything that has even remotely demonstrable progress as they had at Kittyhawk.
You're more like the audience member who confirms "I think Dr. Takemoney's health essence oil is the real thing! Better buy some bottles before his wagon leaves town tomorrow...", all while knowing zero ingredients of the bottle.
Computers can defeat humans in chess.
And cars can beat people in a race. So?!
...Better buy some bottles before his wagon leaves town tomorrow...", all while knowing zero ingredients of the bottle...
I'm not interested in allegorical stories. The area in green is what interests me in relation to this thread.😋
.. The previous post-diagram, got me to looking for something that addresses, what's being described, {at least, approximately} .. Where, searching under, 'mathematician'/ 'Bing' News-page ; Was my intermediary, {url, copy & paste}, stop !
https://medium.com/personal-growth/the-20-rule-applying-the-secret-of-benjamin-franklin-and-isaac-newton-b95796cdb54a
...Better buy some bottles before his wagon leaves town tomorrow...", all while knowing zero ingredients of the bottle...
I'm not interested in allegorical stories. The area in green is what interests me in relation to this thread.😋
I guess it escapes you that none of the three groups in your diagram are necessarily making any progress whatsoever in solving chess. What you want is actually "people who solve math problems, not just talk about them"...but of course, you don't fit in that group. Whereas I have put forth solid numbers several times in this thread, numbers which you still have never been remotely able to refute.
Your conclusion was refuted. Chess gets more mathematical attention than any other game, and yet there is not a single academic paper that has ever been written that says it cannot be solved.
If you have a basis to say that chess cannot be solved, you should submit your diagrams and calculations to a math forum and see what they say. I'm sure it will be refuted there, just like it was here.🤠
Your conclusion was refuted. Chess gets more mathematical attention than any other game, and yet there is not a single academic paper that has ever been written that says it cannot be solved.
If you have a basis to say that chess cannot be solved, you should submit your diagrams and calculations to a math forum and see what they say. I'm sure it will be refuted there, just like it was here.🤠
And I think you know the excellent reason for this (and so do Elroch and bticker at least). As a matter of theoretical math, it CAN be solved. We even know how. The exact methods previously used on smaller games.
The only question is whether, in practical terms, humans can ever have access to the required resources. It is not too silly to say it requires, approximately, the amount of computing power you could make out of the whole moon to find and store the strong solution (10^45 positions) to chess (but at least it doesn't take the whole universe as it would if the number were 10^120).
So...it's up to anyone to decide whether they think this is possible or impossible in practical terms.
I don't know if it can or cannot be done. The question has been posed to chess theorists, programmers, and mathematicians, and nobody knows the answer - and so this thread never dies.😄
OK, you don't know, but do you have any reason to suspect it could be done? Personally, I suspect it can't, but obviously that isn't proof.
If you could show, for example, that the equivalent "small triangle" of perfect Tic Tac Toe games can be found without searching the whole Tic Tac Toe tree, I suspect that result would be generalizable.
I think computers already solved the game. Look at all the engines today. We don't stand a chance.
Read up on the definition of "solved games" before you make yourself look any more foolish than you already have..
Your conclusion was refuted. Chess gets more mathematical attention than any other game, and yet there is not a single academic paper that has ever been written that says it cannot be solved.
If you have a basis to say that chess cannot be solved, you should submit your diagrams and calculations to a math forum and see what they say. I'm sure it will be refuted there, just like it was here.🤠
Too bad the world doesn't work your way, I guess .
The burden of proof is on your side, not mine. Chess is not solved. That is the current reality and the default state, which you must disprove. There are no papers showing a method for solving chess that can actually be achieved by mankind currently. If you can prove it can be, go ahead...otherwise, chess is unsolvable. Go home and stew about it until that changes, or devote your life to learning enough math to do more than talk about it. Either way, you'd more helpful to the overall goal by not continuing to spread misinformation.
Pretty sure a lack of papers shows only that chess is not solved yet.
Pretty sure a lack of papers shows only that chess is not solved yet.
Pretty sure a lack of papers only shows that unicorns once ruled the planet and that we don't have evidence...yet.
Hopefully this highlights the absurdity of your argument. Once again, the burden of proof to refute centuries of speculation on finding an unbeatable chess strategy is upon you, the fantasy followers. All of chess history, all current facts, and all of technology's advances thus far are against your conclusion. To top it all off, none of you have the academic chops to make a dent in the problem yourselves and so continue spouting "what ifs". Good luck...seems like an untenable position.
I think computers already solved the game. Look at all the engines today. We don't stand a chance.
Read up on the definition of "solved games" before you make yourself look any more foolish than you already have..
It's still solved. Like checkers.
Ah. Never mind. Your post history gives you away. You're just a 9 day old sockpuppet/troll waiting to be eventually banned...
Troll elsewhere. You already know that chess was not solved like checkers has been.
tickle de tick CHECK AND MATE. hehehe
Yes, now you can go on to further glorious heights and revel in your titanic achievements, because it took me 2 posts to out you, instead of 1. Oops, wait...it was only my own procrastination in checking the profile of a new poster that did that. It's almost like you aren't worth the time or something...
"unicorns once ruled the planet..."
Claims about the solvability of chess (or not) are provable in a mathematical sense. Good luck doing that with unicorns.
.. 'Blessed, are the peacemakers'; And the Non-sequitur, practitioners !
.. Read it, and Weep !
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603544/an-ai-poker-bot-has-whipped-the-pros/
You can't solve chess but maybe someone else can.😛
Yes. This is known as a fantasy. Imagining that something can happen without any foundation for showing that it actually can happen.
We've been down this road before. If you told me we can create a space elevator ala Fountains of Paradise, I will tell you yes, it's a likely advance that mankind is within striking distance of. We need a filament of the right tensile strength, etc. and we are moving closer all the time in measurable ways.
If you told me we can create a ship that can go through a black hole with human passengers and come out the other side with them alive, I would tell you you are having a fantasy...just like your notion of chess being solved.