...This topic is asking whether computers will solve chess, which is currently not possible...
Here you phrased it differently. Either way, I would be interested to see how you arrived at either of these conclusions.
Since a perfect game can only be played by white, losing doesn't even matter, when playing black because it's always going to lose anyway. So losses don't mean it's making a mistake. That means that only losses playing white are important.
Since a perfect game can only be played by white, losing doesn't even matter, when playing black because it's always going to lose anyway. So losses don't mean it's making a mistake. That means that only losses playing white are important.
Sorry but both White and Black can play a perfect game.
Where is the Quarantine story from?
I gave info about where it was published originally.
Oops, I may have blundered 
The Sun is no good for storing information, even if we could, because of its temperature! Finding as much cold matter would be tricky. I'm beginning to think chess is not worth the bother.
Also any number of reasons, like how even if you had an atom, since it's a fusion reactor, it'd be gone sooner or later.
...It won't be solved in our lifetimes...
How did you arrive at this conclusion?
I've already covered this multiple times. You just choose to ignore it or have forgotten it, much like your own position/assertions, so you can do the digging if you want to find the exact numbers again...essentially you take the world's fastest supercomputer, how much it costs, then figure out the total financial wealth of the entire planet, producing X number of said supercomputers (if humanity were to bend every available resource to solving chess and nothing else, including stuff like, you know, food)...then you take the processing power of that amount of supercomputers and apply it to the 10^46.7 positions, leaving you with a gazillion years required. Then you apply Moore's Law, even though that is also not holding up, and you still get a gazillion years required. Far more than even a few sprinkled in discovered quantum leaps in computing power will alleviate. Then for shits and giggles you allow for another 999,999 out of every million positions to be eliminated as "bad positions", and you still end up with a gazillion years required. Ergo, not possible to solve currently, or in our lifetimes, or in any foreseeable future.
You can either dig up my numbers (probably somewhere between pages 60-100) or find all the variables I listed yourself and crank the numbers through. I'd recommend the former, given your track record.
...figure out the total financial wealth of the entire planet...a gazillion years required...you still get a gazillion years...a few sprinkled...for shits and giggles...end up with a gazillion...crank the numbers...
Let me know if you ever decide to show your work using normal mathematical conventions and numbers.
победа
ынцнц4нц4ц4гц4гц4г4цг
Let me know if you ever decide to show your work using normal mathematical conventions and numbers.
Already done, as I said. It's on this thread, and I even told you the most likely area. Somehow, I found all your posts and quotes and picked out ones of interest not that long ago (hmmm, maybe I used some computer skills you lack). Or did you forget that, too, because you have a memory like a sieve? Explains your inability to argue points consistently.
Vickalan said:
page 56:
"On the other hand, if best play is a draw, chess won't be solved until the entire tree is checked. So we can only expect an answer in our lifetime if one side can force a win. But if perfect play is a draw, we probably won't know it within our lifetime."
page 57:
"Checkers has been solved. Chess is a big leap, but it could happen within a decade or two."
page 61:
"As for solving chess, there is some reason to believe it can happen within a decade or two."
"So chess might be able to be solved in 18 years."
page 62:
"These are other advances that will help solve chess, compared to computers in 2007 when checkers was solved. I agree with Campter: Yes - chess may soon be solved."
page 109:
"If I must make a guess, I would say Yes chess will be solved within 200 years or so."
tree diagrams: pages 65, 68, 116, 117, 127, 145
triangle diagrams: pages 165, 182
venn diagram: pages 146, 184
moving a sofa animated gif: page 176
...not possible to solve currently, or in our lifetimes, or in any foreseeable future
Curious to see your work using normal mathematical conventions and numbers that supports your statement above.
...not possible to solve currently, or in our lifetimes, or in any foreseeable future
Curious to see your work using normal mathematical conventions and numbers that supports your statement above.
As soon as you admit you don't know the first thing about computers, not even enough to find my post...because clearly, if you are this computer-dense, you have no business commenting on this thread.
I've read your posts and checked your math. Your claims were immediately and soundly refuted.
I've read your posts and checked your math. Your claims were immediately and soundly refuted.
Do you ever back up anything you say? With your own words and thoughts, I mean. Because it seems like all you can ever do is make vague claims and silly graphs and then posts links you can't even explain as support...
...It won't be solved in our lifetimes...
How did you arrive at this conclusion?