vickalan wrote:
They've come to the same conclusion as here - it has not been proven that chess cannot be solved, not even within our lifetime.
What an inane conclusion.
Will computers ever solve chess?
Sort:
vickalan wrote:
Yes, if he ever placed any interesting mathematical analysis on this thread, it's buried in his usually rude commentary.
If anyone is interested in this same topic discussed politely between programmers and mathematicians, this same question was asked at the StackExchange:
https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/79272/is-there-an-algorithm-that-can-solve-chess-within-the-span-of-a-human-lifetime
They've come to the same conclusion as here - it has not been proven that chess cannot be solved, not even within our lifetime.
Back to that ridiculous StackExchange thread? Really?
- Neophyte developers forum with no more or less credibility than here.
- Two replies and a sprinkling of comments, almost every one from the same two posters, neither of whom actually have any background or research, just conjecture. Two. "Programmers and mathematicians". Which one is which, Vickalan?
I think that's ambiguous. There are algorithms, but we don't have the technology. That leaves us where Shannon left is in 1949. Chess will require >10^90 years to solve? That is not within a person's life-time, so I take this as "No - chess cannot be solved within a person's lifetime". – tomoka kazuki
-
I wouldn't be so sure if in time smaller than human lifetime, but what's true is that every problem can be solved if you don't take into consideration the time complexity – Shinra tensei
It is the one guy that feels that Chess isn't going to be solvable within our lifetimes, or the other guy that feels that Chess isn't going to solvable in our lifetimes? How do you know they have the backgrounds you claimed? Are you perhaps making assumptions based on the ethnic origin of their names? That seems dangerous, and unethical, how do you feel about that?
What a lively scientific debate...thanks, Google!
lfPatriotGames wrote:
It's probably just me, but your answers seem more rational and polite. His answers, or outbursts, are more difficult for me to understand because they often include things that are way off topic, like insulting people.
It's easy to be rational and polite when you are also ignorant, much like a government clerk that doesn't know how to file your paperwork but is amiable throughout their bumbling. I didn't start off this way, nor do I respond this way on all threads, nor even to everyone on this thread. Just the daydreamy club (like Vickalan, s23bog, yourself, etc.) and the trolls.
As for Vickalan's answers being easier for you to understand...well, that just stands to reason doesn't it? Are you a Trump voter by chance? Same phenom.
I think maybe I'll just switch to posting a thread summary when applicable...something like:
Warning! If you are just entering this thread, please be aware of the following:
- Vickalan and s23bog are space cadets
- Most of the other hangers-on are fuzzy logic, pseudo-science types with zero background in computers in general or chess engines or chess evaluation/calculation methods specifically
- There's been no significant new info on this thread for well over a hundred pages
- It's pointless to comment here unless you are here to combat the misinformation
- There is no plausible reason to believe Chess can be solved in our lifetimes in over two hundred pages here
There's thousands of computers that probably could beat you.
Riptidejr wrote:
There's thousands of computers that probably could beat you.
And...? Every decent engine can beat every human Chess player alive...
btickler wrote:
...There is no plausible reason to believe Chess can be solved in our lifetimes...
You switched your position to a belief?😲
vickalan wrote:
btickler wrote:
...There is no plausible reason to believe Chess can be solved in our lifetimes...
You switched your position to a belief?😲
I didn't switch anything. Logically, all the positions on this thread are beliefs and not certainties. Your belief is just a billion billion times less likely than my belief (I'll spot you the other 10 orders of magnitude from your bad analysis).
Not necessarily. If I say one cannot give examples of perfect games because chess haven’t been solved, it’s not a belief. On the contrary: presenting it as ‘perfect’ is a belief.
Or I say we cannot say that Black cannot win no matter what, it’s a fact, we can’t say that. If we do, it’s merely a belief.
Or even that White holds a small advantage, but it might be insufficient to win—therefore there are only draws with perfect lay—or by increasing this small advantage incrementally, it will eventually win—because that small advantage in the beginning will grow bigger and bigger, with perfect play.
Again, that’s a belief: we don’t know if White holds any advantage in the beginning, as the position could be a Zugzwang, or it could offer equal chances for both sides.
So by taking the position of we don’t really know we are in fact saying that anything is possible, which is not a belief.
btickler wrote:
I didn't switch anything. Logically, all the positions on this thread are beliefs and not certainties...
You switched. Check what you said at post #4015. Also, some people talk math. Math has certainties.
Post #4015 was 564 posts ago! How do you remember this stuff!?
btickler wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
It's probably just me, but your answers seem more rational and polite. His answers, or outbursts, are more difficult for me to understand because they often include things that are way off topic, like insulting people.
It's easy to be rational and polite when you are also ignorant, much like a government clerk that doesn't know how to file your paperwork but is amiable throughout their bumbling. I didn't start off this way, nor do I respond this way on all threads, nor even to everyone on this thread. Just the daydreamy club (like Vickalan, s23bog, yourself, etc.) and the trolls.
As for Vickalan's answers being easier for you to understand...well, that just stands to reason doesn't it? Are you a Trump voter by chance? Same phenom.
Maybe we are just smarter than you. You are trying, but the way you present yourself isn't very appealing. You might say something that has merit every once in a while, but it doens't get noticed because of how you say it. For now I will stick with the idea that it's possible to solve chess. Mainly because people like troy and vick dont get so uptight about the whole thing when they say what's on their mind. Your rude outbursts overshadow what could otherwise possibly be a contribution to the discussion.
btickler wrote: Just the daydreamy club (like Vickalan, s23bog, yourself, etc.) and the trolls.
I can confirm that 23, with whom I’ve had a long convo, fits that description perfectly.
For those who say you don't like how I say things, feel free to skip my posts, or read other threads I post in that I am not as "pointed" in. I respond as I do here because of a long history on this thread to which you are not privy, because you weren't here...so...[insert gesture here].
As for being smarter than me...well, I've read your posts here and in other threads, and I'm going to stick with me over you and the brain-damaged guy that can only talk about bad breath put together.
vickalan wrote:
btickler wrote:
I didn't switch anything. Logically, all the positions on this thread are beliefs and not certainties...
You switched. Check what you said at post #4015. Also, some people talk math. Math has certainties.
Post #4015 is your post. The tiny soundbite you quoted me on in your post has nothing to do with "switching" anything. Geez, I don't think I've ever interacted with anyone that is literally wrong more than they are right, but you are damn close.
Some people talk math? Not in this thread 
...
Note to self: ‘math has certainties’? Just earlier in this thread a mathematician agreed that all math is based on beliefs, its foundation, something which I pointed out earlier.
If these ‘certainties’ are born out from beliefs, and develop from there into a sound system, then are they certainties?
#4539 #4547 #4551 #4558 #4560 #4582 #4589
is this thread so boring that no mod came in to adjust this ?
btickler wrote (post #4051):
Let's be clear:
My position: Chess cannot be solved with current technology, nor with any reasonably foreseeable technology.
btickler wrote (post #4571):There is no plausible reason to believe Chess can be solved in our lifetimes...
That's changing from a statement to a belief. I won't argue with your belief, although the rest of us can communicate without having a temper tantrum.
Yes, if he ever placed any interesting mathematical analysis on this thread, it's buried in his usually rude commentary.
If anyone is interested in this same topic discussed politely between programmers and mathematicians, this same question was asked at the StackExchange:
https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/79272/is-there-an-algorithm-that-can-solve-chess-within-the-span-of-a-human-lifetime
They've come to the same conclusion as here - it has not been proven that chess cannot be solved, not even within our lifetime.