If someone were to say 10^80 in the context of a player, verb, adjective (implying a degfree of realism), then l woul;d present the calculation if l could, but also add this caveat: that it’s absurd.
I presented both sides before you even got here.
I think my intuition is making me try to visualize it similar to your Binary Tree graph you developed for the coin flip problem. Every chess move is a branch off that graph, and when a game ends, that’s the end of a branch of course. So the proof of zermelo’s theorem would be something like proving that, even though many paths lead to losses for white, that white can always avoid one of those paths with perfect play (and possibly that, from the beginning of the game, white can also avoid any paths down that tree that lead to a draw - though that seems unlikely)
The 3 move repetition can be avoided by the players if they are determined to continue. But the 50 move rule in a complex position leads to draw (example: Nakamura vs Donchenko in World Rapid 2024). I guess even with computers this situation can occur.
Nah, you simply don’t understand what it means that mathematics is abstract. You are pretty confused.
What l mean is: anybody facing a 3 move repetition, can ask for a draw, otherwise they lose. Surely, same applies to move 49 in the 50 move rule? I didn’t realise it ever occurred btw.
You exhibit a ack of argument (apart from block caps - admittedly that holds some weight, right?) - and once again: I covered the math already.
You exhibit a lack of argument. You can’t tell the physical world apart from mathematics.
You cannot escape the 50 move rule like the 3 move repetition. To break the 50 moves, you need to either move a pawn (if there is any) or make a capture, both of which may not be ideal moves.
If you are winning, you do not repeat 3 times. But, even in a winning position, if you cannot do it within the 50 move rule, it is a draw.
I can and did distinguish the two.
Tell me, is the following incorrect?
It’s a simple q my good man …
@ghatzige okay l’m kind of lost at this point but cool
This has nothing to do with telling the physical world apart from mathematics.
Also, the “at most have say 100 moves” is wrong, chess games can go on for a lot longer.
Also, this shows a total lack of understanding about the complexity of chess: "Within that, the no. of possible events decreases exponentially with each move, sometimes funnelling down to a binary choice.
The number of winning strategems may therefore be calculable."
This isn’t why chess is calculable in principle.
Give me a litt;le credit and you’ll see what i mean
“say” as in, let’s just set this as upper limitl , obvs it can be 101, 102
Point being, the total games is fininte.
You take a haughty tone. I was basing this off Etropy. Start of game = more potential, as game proceeds, less potential.
You say this undwerstanding is totally wrong i.e. i have total lack of understanding.
Show how.
I jhave cold hands btw
And is this wrong?
Answer without throwing rabbit punches, if possible
The number of possible events doesn’t decrease exponentially with each move. Maybe it does if you start with capturing all the pieces and play absolutely forcing lines. But the opposite can also happen. Most pieces stay on the board, there are many similarly good moves to choose from.
We’ll have to calculate every outcome for hundreds or thousands of moves in advance, until the game ends in every variation, and then we can say what to move now.
I’ve been watching computer chess on and off, these things surpassed humans over 20 years ago, and are now at like 1000 ELO above the best humans and there is still no end in sight in their improvement. These things calculate 20-30 moves ahead and still keep improving. Can always calculate more ahead.
Right, l forgot one thing: it departs from entropy law because of the human-ness, i.e. thos ios not chaptic motion.
So, still, there’s a general narrowing of possibiliotioes assumiong sensible play, right?
1400 elo here, at best
And how is any of this relevant to the topic anyway?
1 Like
Already stated:
What does your claim have to do with Zermelo’s theorem?
And stop playing the victim
Do you or don’t you agree that the no of moves is potemntially calculabl;e? Im askiong you [urely specu;atiove;ly., can you answer dispassionatelty withoit fear that this is a dark art?
Fear, dark art? Who do you think you are?
Number of moves in what?