Decent article on Chinese EVs vs the US.
Tariffs
Love Lewis black
1 Like
He’s really good at video games.
1 Like
Musk, like Trump, thinks chess is too easy to waste time playing.
As a Finn I disagree
1 Like
The comment about chess being fully solved within 10 years doesn’t seem absurd to me.
I don’t understand what “solved” here means. I thought it was solved in that it’s a game of perfect information and computers now beat the best players.
Routinely or always. Solved to me would be a program that never loses to a human.
1 Like
Basically this:
1 Like
Solved in this context would mean for instance answering “does white always win if they play perfectly” which at the moment is not known (no idea for consensus on the likely answer)
For instance checkers is known to be a draw if both play perfectly.
But for practical purposes (ie playing against humans) yeah chess is basically solved, and this is what all the players they quote in the linked article say
(Having not looked into it at all) I dont think chess will be solved in this sense in our lifetimes as this seems to require basically infinite computing power, and does not have much to do with what e.g. chatGPT is doing
3 Likes
In the context of chess specifically, there are lots of endgame positions where the computer has worked out a sequence of moves to conclusion that is unavoidable (i.e. the game will be won or drawn with perfect play in X moves or less). These are fully “solved” positions, and are stored in the tablebase.
To declare chess to be fully solved, there would need to be a tablebase that includes the opening position of the game, i.e. with perfect play from move one the conclusion of the game is known in X moves or less. While computers can beat humans now, they don’t actually do it by knowing from move 1 what every response to every future possible opponent move is. There are too many permutations from the starting position.
2 Likes
Isn’t this the caee right now?
Chess being solved in 10 years is an insane thing to think. The part about chess being a flawed game is on point, although, characteristically, it’s basically lifted from a Culture novel
The second paragraph of the introduction section of this paper has a good summary of what can be meant by “solving” a game:
https://arxiv.org/html/2310.19387v3
Having a 32-piece table base is basically physically impossible. The best that could realistically happen is to “weakly” solve it, meaning you can specify a strategy that lets you efficiently compute the correct next move. But, to repeat, this will absolutely not happen any time in the foreseeable future.
2 Likes
But AI?
No fog of war in Scrabble or Craps either imo.
1 Like