From Puzzle Storm to 3999 Rating: Can Pure Tactics & Blindfold Training Replace Standard Games?

The first experimental dedicated chess computers were massively over-clocked 4-bit processors that only deployed tactical algorithms. Against human players the highest ratings achieved were around 2000 elo. Of course whether a human could match such computation is another matter, but this does suggest the best possible outcome would be no higher than 2000 elo. I would guess for humans ~1800 elo would be the practical limit.

underuncertainity

My perspective: yes.

Disclaimer: trivial justification ahead.

Chess is pure syntax. It is a game of complete information. But it is uncomputable! Therefore, uncertainity. Therefore, "luck" exists given uncertainity.

You can model and tend to "pure syntax". As a way to optimize for time to master the game, I think it is suboptimal. At least develop some semantics... some cobcepts of positional play.

I say, if you want to optimize for mastering the game, 90% syntax and 10% semantics till you reach an advanced player rating (2300 rapid rating here)

My perspective: yes. Disclaimer: trivial justification ahead. Chess is pure syntax. It is a game of complete information. But it is uncomputable! Therefore, uncertainity. Therefore, "luck" exists given uncertainity. You can model and tend to "pure syntax". As a way to optimize for time to master the game, I think it is suboptimal. At least develop some semantics... some cobcepts of positional play. I say, if you want to optimize for mastering the game, 90% syntax and 10% semantics till you reach an advanced player rating (2300 rapid rating here)

Rookitiki

Chess is not computable because we have no quantum computers yet.

Wouldn’t it be funny if black can force a win in 5000 moves?
Then we would have 50% luck for computers.

Chess is not computable because we have no quantum computers yet. Wouldn’t it be funny if black can force a win in 5000 moves? Then we would have 50% luck for computers.

underuncertainity

@Rookitiki said ^

Chess is not computable because we have no quantum computers yet.

Wouldn’t it be funny if black can force a win in 5000 moves?
Then we would have 50% luck for computers.

I made a semantic mistake. The correct term is not "uncomputable". What I meant was that chess is intractable. That intractability is what makes "luck" possible. Lapsus calami... must check with the shrink. Maybe too much time consuming the "more right" forum with no sufficient raw power to epistemically understand it.

Chess will ever be "solved"?

Lets take FIDE actual rules for chess... the rules involved in the possible length of the game.

Just give ASI a chance... but if ASI decides to "solve chess", I bet the OP's question will not be important for humanity...

@Rookitiki said [^](/forum/redirect/post/Rs9QHiNN) > Chess is not computable because we have no quantum computers yet. > > Wouldn’t it be funny if black can force a win in 5000 moves? > Then we would have 50% luck for computers. I made a semantic mistake. The correct term is not "uncomputable". What I meant was that chess is intractable. That intractability is what makes "luck" possible. Lapsus calami... must check with the shrink. Maybe too much time consuming the "more right" forum with no sufficient raw power to epistemically understand it. Chess will ever be "solved"? Lets take FIDE actual rules for chess... the rules involved in the possible length of the game. Just give ASI a chance... but if ASI decides to "solve chess", I bet the OP's question will not be important for humanity...

underuncertainity

Point 1: “My ultimate goal with this idea is to "computerize" human calculation as much as possible”

“...using engine logic to systematically reprogram human intuition and vision rather than relying on it as a crutch.”

Either human “calculation” (all human neurobiological processes that determine an output) is “computerized” or it is not. Trivial dichotomy. Descartes proved that syntax proves itself. “I think, I exist”. The same is true for semantics: “I experience qualia, therefore semantics exist”. Given that syntax and semantics in the human neurobiological engine are trivially proved, necessarily an intrinsic meta-syntax exist that must contain all possible human syntaxes. Also, this meta-syntax implies a monistic epistemological theory of everything that must necessarily contain the meta-syntax and reunite it with qualia. Let’s name this unifying T.O.E “meta-monism”. Walking back various steps, we must discuss, under “meta-monism”, free will. Free will is, given the Pythagorean school and Gödel, syntactically inconsistent. And that gives rise either to explosion and B as proved or that B cannot be proved. This is an epistemological problem. But it is a HUMAN problem. A normative problem. B can be, in semantics, the final solution. The darkest event in human history: genocide, psychopathy, sadism, machiavellism systematized by adults with a fully developed neurobiological system. A plan executed with, perhaps, a single terminal variable? I don't think so. What were the possible terminal variables? Perhaps the one born in Röcken can shed some light on these... but beware. His life and work were manipulated, distorted... in favor of those who have an interest in keeping B as a syntactic problem. So what then? “meta-monism” must be formalized to, forever to the end of times, explicitly make the job in the human neurobiological engine that B is no longer a syntactic problem, because we can prove either that B is, in normative terms and using Boolean logic, 0 or 1. I must explicit my axiological paradigm. First, deontological ethics. If this fails, virtue ethics. If this fails, consequential utilitarianism ethics. If this fails, acting, with the principle of self-defense, to protect harm to third innocent sentient agents and then myself, to minimize harm... given that, if this state is reached, then the scenario is already of negative sum to all agents involved. The final normative question is already active: Neuralink: Yes? No? Maybe? Under what conditions? What IS neuralink? Someone who takes the four senses of interpretation of, perhaps and strongly perhaps, humanity's most important book would simply say, "the mark." Then, the ones who hold true power must ask themselves the following question: shall we accelerate or patiently wait?

Point 2 using google translate:

“An engine can defeat a human not only through search depth but also through psychology and confidence in its moves. A human, on the other hand, plays by calculating a move ahead and recognizing patterns; even the most pointless sacrifice can make them doubt their plan—which is why it’s so easy to reach a 2000 rating these days...”

The engine has the property of psychology. I do not agree. Actual engines AI systems rely on physical transistors that handle only two states governed by bivalent propositional logic. As purely syntactic structures, they manipulate data according to formal rules but lack semantics. This applies to human logos. Foxp2, the condition that gives the physical basis for the last “great leap forward”... the final homo sapiens sapiens, the introduction of semantics... necessary condition for consciousness. And with consciousness, bivalent propositional logic (digital), fuzzy logic, paraconsistent logic, intuitionistic logic... by the mere fact that these are formalized in math (math, that yells with a proud awe “I, the pure discipline that remains eternally pure... not infected by semantics”) this same fact implies that neurobiologically we not only describe these multiple possible different syntaxes but also OPERATE under these different syntaxes and, thus, I repeat: meta-syntax is proven and meta-monism also. Consciousness that explains why we are, for now, the dominant species. Can the engine have the property of psychology? We must wait for QLLM.

Point 3 using google translate:

“@IamNOTamod said ^
How exactly did you obtain such a high puzzle rating?
You could look at the number of puzzles solved per day—that might give you an idea—though that’s not really the main point. Or rather, no, it is relevant, but only partly.

LOL. It is absolutely relevant. What is the use of introspection if it never interacts with external reality? But be patient, be prudent, calculate as much as you can... reality is a variable sum game... My strategy is always cooperate, cooperate, cooperate, cooperate, cooperate and, if in the fifth turn of cooperation the other party defects for the fifth time, just information: I will cooperate the next turn, but if you don’t cooperate the next turn, 1.2.3.4.5.6.7 will necessarily happen.

Beautiful post OP, congrats.

New answer to OP. I was too naive. “The Human Engine Experiment”. This post is far beyond chess. Chess is just a model... and one with many constraints. Taking that into account, I proceed to give what I have to offer as a decent answer. Whenever I introduce “...” I am quoting OP. Point 1: “My ultimate goal with this idea is to "computerize" human calculation as much as possible” “...using engine logic to systematically reprogram human intuition and vision rather than relying on it as a crutch.” Either human “calculation” (all human neurobiological processes that determine an output) is “computerized” or it is not. Trivial dichotomy. Descartes proved that syntax proves itself. “I think, I exist”. The same is true for semantics: “I experience qualia, therefore semantics exist”. Given that syntax and semantics in the human neurobiological engine are trivially proved, necessarily an intrinsic meta-syntax exist that must contain all possible human syntaxes. Also, this meta-syntax implies a monistic epistemological theory of everything that must necessarily contain the meta-syntax and reunite it with qualia. Let’s name this unifying T.O.E “meta-monism”. Walking back various steps, we must discuss, under “meta-monism”, free will. Free will is, given the Pythagorean school and Gödel, syntactically inconsistent. And that gives rise either to explosion and B as proved or that B cannot be proved. This is an epistemological problem. But it is a HUMAN problem. A normative problem. B can be, in semantics, the final solution. The darkest event in human history: genocide, psychopathy, sadism, machiavellism systematized by adults with a fully developed neurobiological system. A plan executed with, perhaps, a single terminal variable? I don't think so. What were the possible terminal variables? Perhaps the one born in Röcken can shed some light on these... but beware. His life and work were manipulated, distorted... in favor of those who have an interest in keeping B as a syntactic problem. So what then? “meta-monism” must be formalized to, forever to the end of times, explicitly make the job in the human neurobiological engine that B is no longer a syntactic problem, because we can prove either that B is, in normative terms and using Boolean logic, 0 or 1. I must explicit my axiological paradigm. First, deontological ethics. If this fails, virtue ethics. If this fails, consequential utilitarianism ethics. If this fails, acting, with the principle of self-defense, to protect harm to third innocent sentient agents and then myself, to minimize harm... given that, if this state is reached, then the scenario is already of negative sum to all agents involved. The final normative question is already active: Neuralink: Yes? No? Maybe? Under what conditions? What IS neuralink? Someone who takes the four senses of interpretation of, perhaps and strongly perhaps, humanity's most important book would simply say, "the mark." Then, the ones who hold true power must ask themselves the following question: shall we accelerate or patiently wait? ------------------------------------------------------- Point 2 using google translate: “An engine can defeat a human not only through search depth but also through psychology and confidence in its moves. A human, on the other hand, plays by calculating a move ahead and recognizing patterns; even the most pointless sacrifice can make them doubt their plan—which is why it’s so easy to reach a 2000 rating these days...” The engine has the property of psychology. I do not agree. Actual engines AI systems rely on physical transistors that handle only two states governed by bivalent propositional logic. As purely syntactic structures, they manipulate data according to formal rules but lack semantics. This applies to human logos. Foxp2, the condition that gives the physical basis for the last “great leap forward”... the final homo sapiens sapiens, the introduction of semantics... necessary condition for consciousness. And with consciousness, bivalent propositional logic (digital), fuzzy logic, paraconsistent logic, intuitionistic logic... by the mere fact that these are formalized in math (math, that yells with a proud awe “I, the pure discipline that remains eternally pure... not infected by semantics”) this same fact implies that neurobiologically we not only describe these multiple possible different syntaxes but also OPERATE under these different syntaxes and, thus, I repeat: meta-syntax is proven and meta-monism also. Consciousness that explains why we are, for now, the dominant species. Can the engine have the property of psychology? We must wait for QLLM. --------------------------------------------------------- Point 3 using google translate: “@IamNOTamod said ^ How exactly did you obtain such a high puzzle rating? You could look at the number of puzzles solved per day—that might give you an idea—though that’s not really the main point. Or rather, no, it *is* relevant, but only partly. LOL. It is absolutely relevant. What is the use of introspection if it never interacts with external reality? But be patient, be prudent, calculate as much as you can... reality is a variable sum game... My strategy is always cooperate, cooperate, cooperate, cooperate, cooperate and, if in the fifth turn of cooperation the other party defects for the fifth time, just information: I will cooperate the next turn, but if you don’t cooperate the next turn, 1.2.3.4.5.6.7 will necessarily happen. ------------------ Beautiful post OP, congrats.

IamNOTamod

@underuncertainity

Wow, that post is long and detailed. Sadly, the OP is probably unable to read it.

@underuncertainity Wow, that post is long and detailed. Sadly, the OP is probably unable to read it.

underuncertainity

@IamNOTamod said ^

@underuncertainity

Wow, that post is long and detailed. Sadly, the OP is probably unable to read it.

LOL.

My "long and detalied post" is what happens when you have 100% free time. Time for some puzzle storm rounds now....

@IamNOTamod said [^](/forum/redirect/post/UUs2ckYb) > @underuncertainity > > Wow, that post is long and detailed. Sadly, the OP is probably unable to read it. LOL. My "long and detalied post" is what happens when you have 100% free time. Time for some puzzle storm rounds now....

spacedox

idk about this. I'm a brand new player and have been doing a lot of puzzles (probably more than I should be for the number of games I've played), and I've noticed that when I get into a game, I tend to flounder because I might be decent at solving the puzzles but I don't know how to get into the puzzle positions in the first place. The issue is that there's no clear path that you're supposed to follow in a game, particularly in the opening