TalkChess.com

Hello: I have read that Jiménez was not awarded as International Master until 1963, so it should not be the 1962 Capablanca Memorial (MI means 'Maestro Internacional' in Spanish, which translates into 'International Master'). Furthermore, I think I have found the correct game. Ché Guevara was a spe...

Michel wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:02 am

Apparently if we consider NxN chess then is has been proved that such an easy algorithm cannot exist. If we restrict ourselves to 8x8 chess then the concept of "easy" is not well defined (as pointed out by Ronald).

It it possible to differentiate where N is less than 12?

* there is no evidence that it is impossible to build an EF that evaluates most chess positions well without building a game tree. We don't know how big such an EF would have to be If it evaluates most chess positions well, but not perfectly, does that mean it might lose occasionaly due to errors?

I have not been following this discussion properly but have you posted about why you believe we will very likely solve chess in the future with these new emergent patterns, if that is your claim? I cannot give you a straight answer, so I'll answer in parts and try to keep those parts understandable...

syzygy wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:32 pm

If would be surprising if towforce were not able to square the circle. I encourage him to take a couple of years to try.

Is it possible in the future that queen vs rook end game can be solved with an algorithm of 10 lines of code?

I have not been following this discussion properly but have you posted about why you believe we will very likely solve chess in the future with these new emergent patterns, if that is your claim? I cannot give you a straight answer, so I'll answer in parts and try to keep those parts understandable...

That is unquestionably the whole point of the paper. Just read the abstract! The only possibility (which is what towforce apparently thinks now) is that the paper has a fatal mistake in it. Of course, any human proof has a non-zero probability of having an error, but no sensible punter would bet mo...

It is not just Paul asserting the fatal flaw. He has brought evidence for the fatal flaw "there's actually no proof in there that in complex positions, it's impossible for rules to exist which can tell you quickly whether the game is won or not." That is not evidence. That is simply an assertion th...

That is unquestionably the whole point of the paper. Just read the abstract! The only possibility (which is what towforce apparently thinks now) is that the paper has a fatal mistake in it. Of course, any human proof has a non-zero probability of having an error, but no sensible punter would bet mo...

Are you planning to answer Paul's question? "What are these cs (Computer Science?) reasons, please?" Already answered a couple of days ago -- TCS = theoretical computer science. Consider this from the TCS angle. As syzygy has stated a couple of times (in different words), if we just mean solving th...