d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > How To Solve The Game Of Chess? > The Old Bible Strategy
Prev1234569Next
Closed New Topic New Poll
Views: 2497Replies: 83Track Topic
Member
Posts: 9,614
Joined: Apr 23 2008
Gold: 268.15
#31
May 17 2018 02:20pm
No one knows how to solve complex games on a board without limit.
No one.

I'm looking for general rules, before looking for specific rules.

Member
Posts: 9,614
Joined: Apr 23 2008
Gold: 268.15
#32
May 17 2018 02:22pm
That's what the scientists should have done.
But scientists are stupid and pretentious.

https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=78614767&f=119

This post was edited by Chevaucheur on May 17 2018 02:22pm
Member
Posts: 64,656
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
#33
May 17 2018 02:29pm
Still haven't told us what you are solving for.

Quote (thesnipa @ May 17 2018 02:15pm)
ok so you're trying to solve for the best strategy to get checkmate from the start of a game?

or you're trying to solve for checkmate from common positions of pieces in the end game?

either way the only answer for those questions, in a game of chess that has a border, is analysis of how the pieces act inside that border. otherwise you're just solving how to get checkmate on a limitless board, which has no bearing on a limited board.

this would be like studying strategies for the 100 meter dash to make conclusions about marathon running, it's nonsensical. adding what moves pieces COULD make on a limitless board saying nothing about how they can produce a checkmate.


It actually makes the solutions way easier. Pieces that move infinitely (bishop, rook, queen) can be almost entirely eliminated from considering by treating them as unlimited "no go zones" for the king.

It's way harder to solve a limited game board than an unconstricted one.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 17 2018 02:30pm
Member
Posts: 9,614
Joined: Apr 23 2008
Gold: 268.15
#34
May 17 2018 02:40pm
The pieces do not necessarily have an unlimited movement: we can limit the movement of the pieces to seven cases.



I think that both things should be studied, to be able to create general rules.

This post was edited by Chevaucheur on May 17 2018 02:41pm
Member
Posts: 64,656
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
#35
May 17 2018 02:41pm
Quote (Chevaucheur @ May 17 2018 02:40pm)
The pieces do not necessarily have an unlimited movement: we can limit the movement of the pieces to seven cases.

https://image.ibb.co/c8OCyy/chess.jpg


What are you even trying to figure out though?
Member
Posts: 9,614
Joined: Apr 23 2008
Gold: 268.15
#36
May 17 2018 02:43pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ May 17 2018 10:29pm)
Still haven't told us what you are solving for.


I am trying to solve R2=0.

That's what I am trying to solve.
I want to quantify the relevance of chess shots.
I do not want to burden myself with a lot of very cumbersome data.

I want to quantify the relevance of chess shots (so I can know each time which is the best shot).
I do not want to burden myself with a lot of very cumbersome data.

This post was edited by Chevaucheur on May 17 2018 02:53pm
Member
Posts: 9,614
Joined: Apr 23 2008
Gold: 268.15
#37
May 17 2018 02:57pm
To quantify the relevance of the shots, I have to do the following things:
  • associate a number with each case
  • associate a number with each piece
  • create formulas that will allow me to know which number to associate with each case
  • create formulas that will allow me to know which number to associate with each piece
  • thanks to these numbers, know which is the best shot to play


At each turn, it will be necessary to recalculate the numbers, for the 64 cases, and for the 32 pieces.



That's the end goal.

This post was edited by Chevaucheur on May 17 2018 02:58pm
Member
Posts: 18,504
Joined: Aug 6 2008
Gold: 542.20
#38
May 17 2018 03:27pm
Quote (Chevaucheur @ May 17 2018 08:22pm)
That's what the scientists should have done.
But scientists are stupid and pretentious.

https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=78614767&f=119


just because actual scientists rightfully laugh at your "claims" and "theories" as nothing more than non-sense and pure trash; doesn't mean they are stupid.

Skepticism and doubt has been part of scientific studies in regards to theories since its early beginnings. And it is healthy for it.


Please learn how to communicate better and provide something that can be more clearly taken as actual evidence or proof. THen u may have a case for an acceptable claim.

This post was edited by GuyLadouche on May 17 2018 03:28pm
Member
Posts: 9,614
Joined: Apr 23 2008
Gold: 268.15
#39
May 17 2018 03:30pm
Quote (GuyLadouche @ May 17 2018 11:27pm)
just because actual scientists rightfully laugh at your "claims" and "theories" as nothing more than non-sense and pure trash; doesn't mean they are stupid.


If I said that scientists are stupid, it's not because they do not listen to me: it's because they can not solve a simple game, with 64 cases.
Member
Posts: 9,614
Joined: Apr 23 2008
Gold: 268.15
#40
May 17 2018 03:36pm
The science of board games is a science that combines mathematics and philosophy.



I know there is a serious lack of social intelligence in society, and I do not blame the scientists.
They do what they can.

But I think that with chess, science can achieve a considerable advance in social intelligence.
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
Prev1234569Next
Closed New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2024 d2jsp  Contact