So again you give a 'sensible' interpretation of what the paper doesn't say. Did you ask ChatGPT to summarise it? Or you hallucinated on your own?towforce wrote: ↑Thu Apr 18, 2024 10:18 amWhat the paper has to say about the growth of the scale of chess on an NxN board as N increases is entirely in the section "POLYNOMIALITY OF TRANSFORMATION". It takes a little over half a page, and it's on page 213 of the paper.chesskobra wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 8:02 pmSo your interpretation that the number of positions grows polynomially with n is wrong - it is neither the fact nor do the authors say so. Let us discuss what the paper actually says.

It does not explicitly say that the size of the game tree increases polynomially with the size of the board - but this is my best interpretation of what it does say. Game tree size is mentioned earlier in the paper, and is a sensible interpretation of what the section says IMO.

Do you know what simulating one problem in another means? Do you know what polynomial time reduction or transformation means? Do you know what intractability means? (Your example of KR vs K is completely irrelevant to intractability.) These are standard notions in complexity theory. In fact because they are so standard, and not made up by the authors for this paper, they have been mentioned only informally in the introduction. Look them up in some other reference for formal definitions. Also look up what nondeterministic polynomial time means, which is also a standard notion.

I have no interest in talking about your interpretations of what the authors are saying. Let us only discuss what the authors actually say. After all it is a mathematics paper, and anybody who understands the area (complexity theory in this case) would understand it quite clearly and quickly. I think you have zero understanding of what is in the paper.

To me what seems to be happening here is:

- some mathematicians and computer scientists write a technical mathematical paper in a mainstream mathematics journal, in an area in which they have track record

- someone outside the area (and likely even outside of maths/CS) looks at the paper superficially and claims to understand what the paper is essentially doing

- makes up some naive interpretations as to what the paper is saying

- starts trashing the paper on a random forum on the internet, calls the conclusions of the paper click-bait, quickly comes up with counter examples, etc.

- when flaws in his interpretations are pointed out, he doubles down his attack on the paper.

This is what you are doing. It is a classic case of trolling. Hence all the harsh comments above. You don't have to accept someone's authority, but the authors in this case are from Weismann Institute and UC Berkeley, have track record, have published papers with other known authorities in the domain. Serious work also goes into refereeing such papers. It is ok not to know or understand anything about many domains. But when you start faking knowledge or expertise, it gets exposed very quickly. So stop trashing the work that you don't understand at all.