vickalan wrote:
Yes, I like to too.
You like to what? Should we be worried what you and Tuna are doing so close together?
Will computers ever solve chess?
Sort:
ponz111 wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
Haha! We don’t know.
However, it can safely be ruled out that if chess is either a win for White or Black, losing in 16 moves is not a perfect game. actually this cannot be safely ruled out. if chess is solved to be a draw then it would be quite probable that there would be billions of 16 move games ending in a draw which were perfect. there would be billions of games ending in a draw which were 21 moves long also.
The only way it could be perfect would be if chess is a draw and certain moves must be played to avoid losing (in rather a lot of moves), and at some point in the opening a perpetual check position would be reached. [this also is not correct there are more ways
to draw than to perpetual check--lack of material to mate is one of them...]
Sir, do you understand English at all? To the first part I said if chess is a win for either White or Black, not if chess is a draw. You are responding to your own fantasy. I said if chess is a win for either side it is less probable that a perfect game ends in 16 moves and you reply that it is not true because if chess is a draw...
Quite retarded.
And to the second part, it is hard to imagine that one side loses in 16 moves due to a forced loss of material in 16 perfect moves.
ponz111 wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
vickalan wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
...You’re just repeating the same idiocies, like some 16-moves games are perfect....
Just to clarify: You haven't concluded that a 16 move game cannot be perfect, have you?
Maybe thats possible. But if a 16 move game could be perfect, why are there 17 move games?
Because if chess is a draw [as most of the very top players believe]
Now he’s back to belief, no more stating to know—from the top players. Still not understanding the difference.
It is a lie that i do not undersand the difference between " believe" and
"know". What you repeatedly failed to understand is that someone can both "believe" and "know" at the same time.
No, you don’t know. When you believe you don’t know for sure. And when you know, you know for sure, otherwise you don’t know, you believe.
Secondly, you are too retarded to understand what a lie means, even after being pointed out 4 times already.
btickler wrote:
...You like to what?...
I like your post. But if it went over your head, guesswork and hyperbole are of no interest to me, and everyone can see that when you begin to insult people it's because you have nothing useful to say.😛
ponz111 wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
Haha! We don’t know.
However, it can safely be ruled out that if chess is either a win for White or Black, losing in 16 moves is not a perfect game. actually this cannot be safely ruled out. if chess is solved to be a draw then it would be quite probable that there would be billions of 16 move games ending in a draw which were perfect. there would be billions of games ending in a draw which were 21 moves long also.
The only way it could be perfect would be if chess is a draw and certain moves must be played to avoid losing (in rather a lot of moves), and at some point in the opening a perpetual check position would be reached. [this also is not correct there are more ways
to draw than to perpetual check--lack of material to mate is one of them...]
As I understand it, the only games that are relevant to game theory are those where the two players try (or at least give themselves a chance) to achieve different results For example, white can play with the view that he will give black opportunities to lose and black can play to achieve a draw. If a strategy exists for black that achieves a draw against all such strategies for white and the same it true with colours inverted, chess is a draw.
Moreover, such games need to be played to a result: one player ends by FORCING their desired result (i.e. mates the opponent or achieves a draw according to the rules used). Games where neither of the players forces a result are irrelevant.
vickalan wrote:
btickler wrote:
...You like to what?...
I like your post. But if it went over your head, guesswork and hyperbole are of no interest to me, and everyone can see that when you begin to insult people it's because you have nothing useful to say.😛
You are speaking as if you even have the capacity to say something over my head. It hasn't happened in almost 400 pages, so...time to run back to Venn diagrams, I guess?
If it went over your head though, the snippet you quoted was just the setup for the joke I made. It was an opportunity afforded by your own lack of proofreading skills and your resulting mistaken doubling of words. Nothing else. I have no questions (that I can think of offhand) that I don't now the answer to already that you could possibly answer for me. Other than perhaps why you are afraid to explain how your analysis of chess being solved in 18 years actually works out numbers-wise?
btickler wrote:
...proofreading skills...
You're so petty.😏
btickler wrote:
...Other than perhaps why you are afraid to explain how your analysis of chess being solved in 18 years actually works out numbers-wise?
BTW, chess being solved in 18 years is possible because the number of mathematical operations to solve chess is unknown. And 18 years is within the range of time that is unknown:
troy7915 wrote:ponz in blue
ponz111 wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
vickalan wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
...You’re just repeating the same idiocies, like some 16-moves games are perfect....
Just to clarify: You haven't concluded that a 16 move game cannot be perfect, have you?
Maybe thats possible. But if a 16 move game could be perfect, why are there 17 move games?
Because if chess is a draw [as most of the very top players believe]
Now he’s back to belief, no more stating to know—from the top players. Still not understanding the difference.
It is a lie that i do not undersand the difference between " believe" and
"know". What you repeatedly failed to understand is that someone can both "believe" and "know" at the same time.
No, you don’t know. When you believe you don’t know for sure. believe to be certain of also to be convinced of also to have no doubt also assumed to be true
And when you know, you know for sure, otherwise you don’t know, you believe. you are using your own definition of "believe" and it conflicts with above
Secondly, you are too retarded to understand what a lie means, even after being pointed out 4 times already. "retarded" here you are using an adhominem attack which is a logical fallacy.
because you were in error 4 times does not mean i am retarded
btickler wrote: ponz in red
square0 wrote:
You can also try to prove the drawishness of chess ad absurdam, in that it would be almost unthinkable that the most perfect of perfect games, a king's game, would turn out to be imperfect enough that there was a single line for one side that would lead irrefutably to a win.
Your premise is flawed in that chess *evolved* to it's current state...it's been effectively designed by committee over the centuries. It is far from a scenario of purposeful and perfect game design. What it has evolved into is remarkable, and as close to perfectly a balanced game as I think has ever evolved over that length of time (thus, its enduring popularity). But it is nowhere close to perfect. The key for chess is that the game's complexity of calculation ensures that those imperfections it still has are hidden from human comprehension OTB, so we cannot exploit them effectively.
Ways in which chess could be arguably "more perfect" as a game design/construct:
- Reduce first move advantage to zero or effectively zero
- Fix clunkiness of en passant en passant is fine
- Fix bishop/knight imbalance (bishop pair = better than pair of knights)
why should bishop and knight be balanced? none of the other pieces are in balance
with other pieces--do you want rooks balanced with knights?
- Fix clunkiness/smooth out rough edges of castling castling is well understood
- Remove clunkiness of 3-fold repetition and 50/75 move rules (tournament play only)
...I'm sure I could come up with more if I spent more time. all you would be doing would be to make chess - not chess...
Everybody likes to quote the mathematical number of positions makes solving chess impossible, in the near future. However, all it takes to solves chess is one winning line, which cannot be beat. Alpha zero is undefeated, playing white and how long will it take before that AI decides it can't be beat using one line as white? I don't think the question of solving chess should be if or when, but how will we play the game after?
ponz111 wrote:
btickler wrote: ponz in red
square0 wrote:
You can also try to prove the drawishness of chess ad absurdam, in that it would be almost unthinkable that the most perfect of perfect games, a king's game, would turn out to be imperfect enough that there was a single line for one side that would lead irrefutably to a win.
Your premise is flawed in that chess *evolved* to it's current state...it's been effectively designed by committee over the centuries. It is far from a scenario of purposeful and perfect game design. What it has evolved into is remarkable, and as close to perfectly a balanced game as I think has ever evolved over that length of time (thus, its enduring popularity). But it is nowhere close to perfect. The key for chess is that the game's complexity of calculation ensures that those imperfections it still has are hidden from human comprehension OTB, so we cannot exploit them effectively.
Ways in which chess could be arguably "more perfect" as a game design/construct:
- Reduce first move advantage to zero or effectively zero
- Fix clunkiness of en passant en passant is fine
- Fix bishop/knight imbalance (bishop pair = better than pair of knights)
why should bishop and knight be balanced? none of the other pieces are in balance
with other pieces--do you want rooks balanced with knights?
- Fix clunkiness/smooth out rough edges of castling castling is well understood
- Remove clunkiness of 3-fold repetition and 50/75 move rules (tournament play only)
...I'm sure I could come up with more if I spent more time. all you would be doing would be to make chess - not chess...
Ponz, I'm really not interested in your BS other than when I am forced to refute it, and I would not really expect you to be able to look at chess objectively or from an external design standpoint. You're too much of a one-note.
0
#5894
btickler wrote:
. . . I'm really not interested in . . . BS . . . and I would not really expect [people] to be able [to understand] . . .
Bingo.
Which is why anyone with intellect does themselves a disservice by posting in this topic.
vickalan wrote:
btickler wrote:
...Other than perhaps why you are afraid to explain how your analysis of chess being solved in 18 years actually works out numbers-wise?
BTW, chess being solved in 18 years is possible because the number of mathematical operations to solve chess is unknown. And 18 years is within the range of time that is unknown:
The caption on your diagram should actually read "MRI scan of Vickalan's brainpan, with number of active braincells noted."
btickler wrote:
...The caption on your diagram should actually read...
You asked for the mathematical basis showing why solving chess in 18 years has not been ruled out, and when I show it, you jump to insults. It's one of the things you do when you run out of arguments.
I think if this thread reaches 400 pages we should implore the mods to pin it to the top of the forum.
0
#5898
BlargDragon wrote:
I think if this thread reaches 400 pages we should implore the mods to pin it to the top of the forum.
You want them to sticky this topic?
I can think of a good place to stick-y it...
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
BlargDragon wrote:
I think if this thread reaches 400 pages we should implore the mods to pin it to the top of the forum.
You want them to sticky this topic?
I can think of a good place to stick-y it...
That option's always on the table, but it's a very large topic and I'm not eager to explain the hospital stay or reconstructive surgery to my friends and family.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
Yes, I like it too.