Just dropping in to say chess isn't solved and most likely never will be. Also, there are still positions in chess where people are superior to machines.

There is no such thing as "pretty much solved". It either is or it isn't.

um.. what made u think it most likely never will be?

of course it isn't solved, what i meant by "pretty much solved" is that for "pretty much" any positions (especially late positions, given the limited number of pieces in play), we know with a reasonable degree of certainty what move is the perfect next move and we know the outcome if both players plays perfectly.But no, computers didn't solved every situations yet, so chess isn't solved. will it be solved one day? i don't see why not, maybe it will require 24/7 calculations during 100 years until all possibilities have run out.

Edited 3/6/2014 14:42:05

On solving chess:

If you consider the possible positions of all pieces except for any pawns and assume you can consider a billion of those positions every second, it will still take you about a billion millenia to consider all these positions. Now multiply this by a number somewhere in between 33 and 64 for every pawn of every player and multiply this number with another huge number (not even bothering estimating that one) for all pieces that you can theoretically change all pawns into.

Then, take into account that "solving" chess means that what I previously called "considering a position" actually requires writing a recursive/iterative script in which all possible follow up positions are searched for an optimum.

So unless some brilliant mind finds an unexpected way to reduce the dimensionality of this problem any time soon, I agree with Ace Windu: it probably won't ever be solved. ;-)

At least we'll have an almost-solved version for the alien archaeologists to dig up when they visit our planet a couple thousand years from now.

Hopefully they won't find this forum.

both theory about being able to solve chess are argued and defended by game theorists. I'm not a game theorist so i don't see the point in arguing. You don't know what technology we will have in 50 years, but yes todays computers are incapable of completetly solving chess (tho chess is partially solved). The point is that chess IS solvable in theory, and there is no arguing that

edit: what i meant by "solved" earlier is that no human can have an edge over today chess programs

Edited 3/6/2014 18:39:54

Practically ANYTHING is possible in theory.
And there is no arguing with theory since it is only theory and thus can't be refuted.

well, i don't know what you guys were arguing about, but i was talking about game THEORY...so sorry if it involves theory. And no, not anything is possible in theory

I am not saying warlight is always in a rock paper scissors situation, and i am not saying in warlight each of the "rock" "paper" "scissors" are equal, generally in warlight they have different "weight". But still, at many of the situations you need to correctly predict your opponent in order to make the "best" move.

Warlight, like any simultaneous-move game, is almost always in a "rock" "paper" "scissors" mode, thus the GTO strategy is almost always a mixed strategy. The GTO solution is almost always 80% move A + 15% move B + 5% move C. The percentages come from calculating the payoff matrix for each pair of move/response and solving minimax. This procedure automatically parses away dominated strategies, and assigns the percentages to non-dominated strategies.

On occasion, when completely lost as to what to do, I would select 6-7 options that I had, 6-7 options that my opponent had, estimate payoffs for each combo of actions, apply minimax to that matrix, and make my options much more clear. You could call that my form of meditation :)

On occasion, when completely lost as to what to do, I would select 6-7 options that I had, 6-7 options that my opponent had, estimate payoffs for each combo of actions, apply minimax to that matrix, and make my options much more clear. You could call that my form of meditation :)

that's the spirit :)
I don't know how you do it tho, analysing 6*6 situations to find each payoff, rank payoff and defining the best mixed strategy...sounds like harcore meditation :D

Slightly unrelated, but in my experience i've also noticed that people who tend to lean towards this sort of numerical game theory are the people more likely to get frustrated with games and eventually quit Warlight altogether. Has anyone else noticed this?

Yes. Sze was so so highly strung. He put himself under a lot of pressure in 1v1s and ladder games especially. The stress stopped him from seeing the big picture, he got obsessive about details and prematurely optimised his strategy. Eventually he realised he'd be more happy never playing another 1v1. Maybe one day he will realise he can play 1v1 and lose and be happy.

He was quite fun in 3v3s where he was more relaxed. Or when he was drunk =D

Is this why Teddy quit the 1v1 ladder? Too many "what if" calculations?

I quit the ladders because the templates bore me if I play them competitively, much like how chess bores me: memorize patterns, do the game theory for guesswork and predictions. Where is the fun?

3v3 Europe is fun. If that ladder existed I'd play it as much as piggy plays the 1v1 ladder.

Ive played a few hundred ladder games over 2 years, im not incredibly active. I just talk a lot =D. I prefer casual 1v1s against pros.

I quit because WL stopped being fun. I think it's the 3rd time it happened, so I might be back for another run in a year:)

I don't know if it's because of my approach to the game that it turns from super fun to super boring after 6 months. I do know the same thing happens with all games I play. I played poker full-time for 18 months at one point, the last 9 months when I didn't enjoy it any more. When I quit after those 18 months, I hated it to the point of physical aversion. So yeah, I do wonder why that happens ..

I would assume that happens a lot to people that try to grind out 1st place on ladder and hold it. I don't know if I will ever burn out because I play lots of formats and it keeps things interesting. I'm not a Strat ME machine like some people on here.

Teddy just needs to start trolling the forum with alts. That is the cure to 1v1 ME malaise, as it balances the humors.

Edited 3/11/2014 00:31:11