Elroch wrote:
Right. I have not delved far enough to learn how he presents his absurd nonsense.
He's forgetting that high probabilities doesn't mean you assume he's assuming it means that it is true
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Jun 15, 2024
0
#9183
playerafar wrote:
When somebody lies - but they internally choose to believe their own lie and then maintain in that way - are they still then lying?The short answer is yes.
Is anybody exempt from this?
i'd say that nobody is exempt from this, but our intellectual worth is determined by our effort to be true in our knowledge.If you tell yourself that something is true that isn't - are you lying?
Some would say 'if whoever was given false data to work with - then that could be an instance about being honest in telling a falsehood'.
That's the medium answer.
---------------------------------
Could a computer be assigned to simply analyze all lines of chess and stop analyzing any lines where the advantage for one side has reached +5 ?
Could chess be 'approximately solved' that way?
Or to have a chance - would the 'stopping advantage' have to be as little as 0.5 ?
That would be ridiculous.
Stockfish could 'solve' chess right now if the stopping advantage only had to be 0.1
It would Solve chess in seconds. Already has.
those advantages can only really be useful in pruning one side for a "solve" so im not entirely sure.
Jun 15, 2024
0
#9184
playerafar wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
tygxc why arent you addressing the fact that we've proven you wrong again and again?
do you get some sort of sick kick from spreading misinformation?
tygxc's 'strongest' position so far ... as in 'least weak' is something that he just mentioned but has been saying for years.
Like this:
"1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white, without needing any game tree."
Now I would say that's reasonable.
It's a very reasonable guess. But if you think it is a strictly CERTAIN conclusion, you are being unreasonable (in a way many people are).
White simply 'drops his bishop' for a compensation that is just too much less.
Right so, we are using our positional evaluations as human players to conclude there is no need to analyse that line further (let's face it, none of us have bothered to look further).(black then has doubled isolated a-pawns)
An example of a crude positional factor used as part of our positional evaluation.So I would say that the computer not bothering to analyze further from there - is reasonable 'approximate solving'.
Reasonable from the point of view of a human player (of what strength).
A term unfortunately coined is 'weakly solving'.
Nothing unfortunate about it. It's a label, perfectly understood by everyone who seriously uses it (or who can read a wikipedia article).After bxa6 there ... black is not 'weak'. He's strong. A bishop up.
Irrelevant conflation. And it's as if you don't know that when you are constructing a weak strategy as black for chess that reaches the position 1. e4 e5, you need to demonstrate a forced draw (or win) for black from the position 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6. Not just guess one. You need first to pick a move for black (easy enough, capture the bishop the way you want - you can use the knight if you don't like doubled pawns) then deal with the 25 possible moves (if I have counted correctly in my head) for white on move 3.--------------------------
but tygxc is using the logic of that one argument - to build illogic.
For the computer to keep dismissing 'further game tree' on any line because its materially up -
isn't legitimate because 'compensation' varies and it isn't easy to assign definitions of what is 'enough compensation' or 'more than enough compensation' ...
but tygxc would then be likely to use 'computer evaluation' ... like have the computer 'dismiss' if its evaluation is for more than two point advantage for one side.
Yes. This is junk. There is no doubt that you could find a million bishop sacrifices it would get wrong. Probably the easiest way would be to have them reaching a tablebase position that it gets wrong.But he doesn't get it that that's a circular argument that fails to take into account that the computer is fallible and hasn't 'solved' chess in the first place and can't do so.
Exactly.He's arguing that the computer could validate itself and is right because it says so.
Does tygxc believe in his own false argument or is he being deceitful?
Has tygxc fallen into a pitfall because in tactics puzzles - the puzzle doesn't continue beyond the solution moves? Has tygxc 'fallen' because players Resign in lost positions?
-------------------------
Experience and observation over decades tells me that such things aren't A or B.
Whoever - if invested enough - stops caring much whether they think they believe their own nonsense or not.
So they're not even aware either way.
Is there another specific instance of this in tygxc's spiels?
Yes.
It becomes more apparent when he asserts 'We don't Care about the number of operations per second that supercomputers can do - we only Care about Nodes per second!'
That is basically revealing about tygxc's internal illogic.
He doesn't care because he doesn't know.
He doesn't know because he doesn't want to know.
---------------------------------
You'll find this in many crass denial of logic or denial of science or denial of reality situations around the world.
Do flat-earthers know they're pushing nonsense or they think they aren't?
They stopped caring long before - as to which - and they stopped being internally aware of same. And don't want to be.
Result - nobody can talk to them - about them.
And the result is projection. Which always involves falsehood by the person so doing.
'No! Its You! And MSM! Main Stream Media. The world is Flat!'
Let me make an observation. Stockfish is the strongest chess player in the world. It is so based on just three essential things:
- its positional evaluation routine
- its ability to prioritise search of variations guided by this
- doing this very fast
Up to quite recently, many years were spent to handcraft a positional evaluation routine, with many contributors improving it, testing the improvements and iterating this process.
Then all this was replaced by the training of one neural network from scratch. This single change - ignoring all the human input and previous testing - increased Stockfish rating by a massive amount, around 100 points, by far the biggest step since it had become world class.
Using this neutral network and its algorithm for searching, it does not ignore positions like 1. e4 e5 2.Ba6. Rather it gives them a low priority. When they are near the start of analysis it will definitely analyse a lot of other more sensible looking stuff first, but when a lot of good lines have been quite well analysed, it will use a little CPU time to look a bit deeper at 2. Ba6. Just in case. It leaves no stone unturned (it just doesn't turn really bad-looking stones until it has had a good look at all the better looking stones).
The "reasonable" choice to ignore 2.Ba6 completely either shows that Stockfish is getting it wrong and needs some advice from us humans or that it is only approximately reasonable and is actually pedantically misguided. If you want to know which is true, it's probably best to think of the comparison between many years of collaborated development of a positional evaluation routine and leaving the neutral network do it itself.
Jun 15, 2024
0
#9185
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Right. I have not delved far enough to learn how he presents his absurd nonsense.
He's forgetting that high probabilities doesn't mean you assume he's assuming it means that it is true
I was referring to Terrence Howard. I think you thought "he" and "his" referred to @tygxc.
Jun 15, 2024
0
#9186
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
Elroch wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
I used to be confused as to hwo somebody like tygxc could be so confidently incorrect for so long without being strictly anti science but thats when I saw the terrence howard podcast.
tygxc is just terrence howard. He cites a ton of fancy terms but he doesnt understand any of the principles., nor does he understand basic logic.
I had never heard of Terence Howard, but now I see he is one of the people who have realised that for every truth there is an alternative truth for which you can find a market. Admittedly that market consists of idiots, but why should that matter?
i just noticed that tygxc's style of commentary was very reminiscent of terrence howard's.
Terence Howard. Does Terence believe his own nonsense?
Or is he just grandstanding?
Or is is a kind of 'devil's advocate' behaviour and his real message is 'don't be like this'.
I don't know. Probably won't know.
I took one glance a few days ago at TH's public commentary and decided I didn't want to see any more.
I would say that Terence Howard is a much much better person than Alex Jones though.
But that's not hard.
--------------------------------------------------------
Also from MEGA
"When somebody lies - but they internally choose to believe their own lie and then maintain in that way - are they still then lying?The short answer is yes.
Is anybody exempt from this?"
reply from MEGA ...
"i'd say that nobody is exempt from this, but our intellectual worth is determined by our effort to be true in our knowledge"
I agree. Which would mean that 'O' (@Optimissed) has zero intellectual worth but in the case of tygxc - does it apply to him too?
tygxc keeps making the same mistakes over and over.
What ever brought him to this?
My guess would be chessplaying and chess study and chess puzzles.
Puzzles are solved without always playing through to mate.
Players in losing positions often Resign. Sometimes even mistakenly resign.
Elroch appears to be suggesting that trying to assign human tendencies in the computer programming - is a mistake.
If I've got that right about Elroch's reply notes to my post.
I should make a separate post replying to Elroch. Will.
Elroch wrote:
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Right. I have not delved far enough to learn how he presents his absurd nonsense.
He's forgetting that high probabilities doesn't mean you assume he's assuming it means that it is true
I was referring to Terrence Howard. I think you thought "he" and "his" referred to @tygxc.
Yup
Jun 15, 2024
0
#9188
chess is solved by the first move by white and then they resign. this is the first choice that is possible
its resigning
Jun 15, 2024
0
#9189
Elroch wrote:
playerafar wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
tygxc why arent you addressing the fact that we've proven you wrong again and again?
do you get some sort of sick kick from spreading misinformation?
tygxc's 'strongest' position so far ... as in 'least weak' is something that he just mentioned but has been saying for years.
Like this:
"1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white, without needing any game tree."
Now I would say that's reasonable.
It's a very reasonable guess. But if you think it is a strictly CERTAIN conclusion, you are being unreasonable (in a way many people are).
White simply 'drops his bishop' for a compensation that is just too much less.
Right so, we are using our positional evaluations as human players to conclude there is no need to analyse that line further (let's face it, none of us have bothered to look further).(black then has doubled isolated a-pawns)
An example of a crude positional factor used as part of our positional evaluation.So I would say that the computer not bothering to analyze further from there - is reasonable 'approximate solving'.
Reasonable from the point of view of a human player (of what strength).
A term unfortunately coined is 'weakly solving'.
Nothing unfortunate about it. It's a label, perfectly understood by everyone who seriously uses it (or who can read a wikipedia article).After bxa6 there ... black is not 'weak'. He's strong. A bishop up.
Irrelevant conflation. And it's as if you don't know that when you are constructing a weak strategy as black for chess that reaches the position 1. e4 e5, you need to demonstrate a forced draw (or win) for black from the position 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6. Not just guess one. You need first to pick a move for black (easy enough, capture the bishop the way you want - you can use the knight if you don't like doubled pawns) then deal with the 25 possible moves (if I have counted correctly in my head) for white on move 3.--------------------------
but tygxc is using the logic of that one argument - to build illogic.
For the computer to keep dismissing 'further game tree' on any line because its materially up -
isn't legitimate because 'compensation' varies and it isn't easy to assign definitions of what is 'enough compensation' or 'more than enough compensation' ...
but tygxc would then be likely to use 'computer evaluation' ... like have the computer 'dismiss' if its evaluation is for more than two point advantage for one side.
Yes. This is junk. There is no doubt that you could find a million bishop sacrifices it would get wrong. Probably the easiest way would be to have them reaching a tablebase position that it gets wrong.But he doesn't get it that that's a circular argument that fails to take into account that the computer is fallible and hasn't 'solved' chess in the first place and can't do so.
Exactly.He's arguing that the computer could validate itself and is right because it says so.
Does tygxc believe in his own false argument or is he being deceitful?
Has tygxc fallen into a pitfall because in tactics puzzles - the puzzle doesn't continue beyond the solution moves? Has tygxc 'fallen' because players Resign in lost positions?
-------------------------
Experience and observation over decades tells me that such things aren't A or B.
Whoever - if invested enough - stops caring much whether they think they believe their own nonsense or not.
So they're not even aware either way.
Is there another specific instance of this in tygxc's spiels?
Yes.
It becomes more apparent when he asserts 'We don't Care about the number of operations per second that supercomputers can do - we only Care about Nodes per second!'
That is basically revealing about tygxc's internal illogic.
He doesn't care because he doesn't know.
He doesn't know because he doesn't want to know.
---------------------------------
You'll find this in many crass denial of logic or denial of science or denial of reality situations around the world.
Do flat-earthers know they're pushing nonsense or they think they aren't?
They stopped caring long before - as to which - and they stopped being internally aware of same. And don't want to be.
Result - nobody can talk to them - about them.
And the result is projection. Which always involves falsehood by the person so doing.
'No! Its You! And MSM! Main Stream Media. The world is Flat!'
Let me make an observation. Stockfish is the strongest chess player in the world. It is so based on just three essential things:
- its positional evaluation routine
- its ability to prioritise search of variations guided by this
- doing this very fast
Up to quite recently, many years were spent to handcraft a positional evaluation routine, with many contributors improving it, testing the improvements and iterating this process.
Then all this was replaced by the training of one neural network from scratch. This single change - ignoring all the human input and previous testing - increased Stockfish rating by a massive amount, around 100 points, by far the biggest step since it had become world class.
Using this neutral network and its algorithm for searching, it does not ignore positions like 1. e4 e5 2.Ba6. Rather it gives them a low priority. When they are near the start of analysis it will definitely analyse a lot of other more sensible looking stuff first, but when a lot of good lines have been quite well analysed, it will use a little CPU time to look a bit deeper at 2. Ba6. Just in case. It leaves no stone unturned (it just doesn't turn really bad-looking stones until it has had a good look at all the better looking stones).
The "reasonable" choice to ignore 2.Ba6 completely either shows that Stockfish is getting it wrong and needs some advice from us humans or that it is only approximately reasonable and is actually pedantically misguided. If you want to know which is true, it's probably best to think of the comparison between many years of collaborated development of a positional evaluation routine and leaving the neutral network do it itself.
from Elroch:
"Right so, we are using our positional evaluations as human players to conclude there is no need to analyse that line further (let's face it, none of us have bothered to look further)"
the computer might look a little further - but its only going to take it some billionths of seconds to determine that white has no subsequent tactical retaliation to black taking the bishop at a3. So its not just a 'human' thing that the computer 'saves time' and doesn't bother going much further.
A few billionths of seconds. Maybe that's a Lot for Stockfish.
---------------------------------------I'll add to this post.
But I want to make sure I'm not getting graphics problems first.So I'll post this now.
Jun 15, 2024
0
#9190
Is this chess solved? this is a short game. is this the fastest way that white can win?
Jun 15, 2024
0
#9192
@Elroch
I'll quote your notes further. Here. So as not to have a gigantic post.
Also - many graphic options don't seem to work properly when using the chess.com quote feature.
"A term unfortunately coined is 'weakly solving'."
"Nothing unfortunate about it. It's a label, perfectly understood by everyone who seriously uses it (or who can read a wikipedia article)"The fact that its understood and accepted doesn't mean its good terminology.
A much better term would be 'approximations to solving'
.We're going to disagree on this one. But that's okay.
Because neither of us is fragile or delicate.
-----------------------------------
but tygxc would then be likely to use 'computer evaluation' ... like have the computer 'dismiss' if its evaluation is for more than two point advantage for one side.
----------------
"Yes. This is junk. There is no doubt that you could find a million bishop sacrifices it would get wrong. Probably the easiest way would be to have them reaching a tablebase position that it gets wrong."But he doesn't get it that that's a circular argument that fails to take into account that the computer is fallible and hasn't 'solved' chess in the first place and can't do so.
ExactlyBut then I added to the effect that tygxc also doesn't seem to get it that the computer can't validate itself by saying its right. Nor can tygxc so validate. He doesn't get it.
-------------
from Elroch:
Using this neutral network and its algorithm for searching, it does not ignore positions like 1. e4 e5 2.Ba6. Rather it gives them a low priority.That's what I'm saying too. In different words.
Is such a thing 'solving'? I would say its an approximation to solving.
In the case of that Ba6 move I wouldn't call it a 'guess'.
I would say its reasonable and an approximation. A reasonable one.
-------------------------------------
But then there's a point:
If Stockfish assigns an advantage of +10 to either side - at any point - then I would say that means the losing side can't hope to draw unless the winning side makes a blunder or plays very inferior moves from there.
So its 'reasonable' for the computer to only assign a few more billionths of seconds to such positions. For example - to Queen sacrifices.
But now the Bad News.
If Stockfish needs a +10 for either side - to stop sustained analysis of whatever position ... that's not going to help it enough with its task.
Its still looking at many trillions of years to 'approximately solve' chess in that case.
--------------------
will computers ever be able to complain?
How many computers does it take to ...none of those jokes on the net.
So maybe I can coin one.
tygxc is the foil that stimulates the topic here.
Not 'the guy' whose name begins with O.
How many computers does it take to convince tygxc his logic is faulty?
None. It can't be done. Neither by computers nor by humans.
But he's okay though.
Jun 15, 2024
0
#9193
Luke-Jaywalker wrote:
you’d be better off private messaging
you'd be better off not reading what you don't want to read.
Jun 15, 2024
0
#9194
Luke-Jaywalker wrote:
i didn’t read it.
why would you think i did ?
LJ now claims he didn't read - but was still still foolish enough to comment about what he says he didn't read.
Apparently LJ is not interested in the forum topic.
O gets muted twice so suddenly LJ goes nuts while showing up here.
He's a member of chess.com a few weeks.
With twenty straight 'won' games.
I guess he would be useful for 'posting around' ...
playerafar wrote:
Luke-Jaywalker wrote:
i didn’t read it.
why would you think i did ?
LJ now claims he didn't read - but was still still foolish enough to comment about what he says he didn't read.
Apparently LJ is not interested in the forum topic.
O gets muted twice so suddenly LJ goes nuts while showing up here.
He's a member of chess.com a few weeks.
With twenty straight 'won' games.
I guess he would be useful for 'posting around' ...
Bro you do the same thing
What makes you think he did read just cause he saw bright colors
Jun 15, 2024
0
#9196
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
playerafar wrote:
Luke-Jaywalker wrote:
i didn’t read it.
why would you think i did ?
LJ now claims he didn't read - but was still still foolish enough to comment about what he says he didn't read.
Apparently LJ is not interested in the forum topic.
O gets muted twice so suddenly LJ goes nuts while showing up here.
He's a member of chess.com a few weeks.
With twenty straight 'won' games.
I guess he would be useful for 'posting around' ...
Bro you do the same thing
What makes you think he did read just cause he saw bright colors
No I don't BC.
And I also didn't claim he read.
You're telling falsehoods again.
But that's expected.
Difference between projection and non-projection ... the projecting person is telling falsehoods - the other person is not.
You'll probably now project your own projection again.
But that's expected too.
Ever think of discussing the forum topic?
Try it out.
See ya.
@12175
"Some have as high as 40." ++ 40 legal moves, but most of these transposing or not sensible. Chess is full of transpositions: the branches of its tree join together in the same nodes.
"Your 3 number" ++ Is the average number of non transposing moves.
Proof: 10^38 = 3^80. Pigeonhole principle.
"You might as well extend your mistaken premise and say that 1 e3 is not winning because 1 e4 is superior, or 2 Be2 is not winning because 2 Bc4 and Bb5 are better."
++ No. We can dismiss 1 e3, as it cannot be better than 1 e4. 1 e3 draws just the same as 1 e4, but it is unthinkable that 1 e3 would win while 1 e4 would only draw.
We can dismiss 2 Be2, as it cannot be better than 2 Bc4 or 2 Bb5. 2 Be2 draws just the same as 2 Bc4 or 2 Bb5, but it is unthinkable that 2 Be2 would win and 2 Bc4 or 2 Bb5 would only draw.
"you cannot achieve perfect Alpha Beta search"
++ That is right, but it can come close. The exponent might be a bit larger than 0.5.
For Checkers it was 0.67. Chess engines have evolved more than Chinook.
Chess is easier to prune than checkers.
Jun 15, 2024
0
#9199
"but it is unthinkable that 1 e3 would win while 1 e4 would only draw."
No it isn't.
e3 protects the critical diagonal that leads from b6 and c5 into f2 and g1.
And e4 puts the e-pawn on an unprotected square and its also then too late to get the pawn back to e3.
tygxc - you're trying to be 'rigorous' in a misplaced way.
While ignoring rigorous in other contexts where its imperative.
That isn't meant to be personal though.
I am talking about your positions about the forum topic.
Right. I have not delved far enough to learn how he presents his absurd nonsense.