Any intelligent life here to talk about chess? Especially Mathematicians and Physicists

When I refer to perfect, it is the optimization of chess, find out what it means that they want to solve chess just like Chinese checkers, they have been able to solve chess up to 7 pieces, and they call it table of finals,
What I assumed is that stockfish plays perfectly, and then we come to a contradiction, to an absurdity and I put 3 scenarios, 1. White always wins if both play perfectly,
2. Black always wins if both pieces play perfectly,
3. would be a draw if both pieces play perfectly,
by discarding these 3 scenarios, it is shown that stockfish does not play perfectly,
My demonstration method serves to arrive at a contradiction, an absurdity that stockfish plays perfectly,
but if the 3 scenarios are discarded,
but if the 3 scenarios are not ruled out, then it could not be said that it plays perfectly, my method is to show that it does not play perfectly,
I am going to give you an example of a perfect game simple,
you have it mate in 1, and you do it in mate in 2 or more, that is not perfect, the perfect thing would be in this case mate in 1,
I put these 3 scenarios, because nobody knows how a game would end if both pieces played perfectly,
1. White always wins, they play perfectly,
2, if Black always wins if he plays perfectly
3. It would be a draw if both play perfectly,
and since 50 as white pieces and 50 as black pieces take turns in the TCEC tournament, the result for stockfish was +20= 64 -16
means 20 wins 64 draws and 16 losses, this result rules out the 3 scenarios
I will put bibliography as much as possible

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_de_datos_de_tablas_de_finales

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIIhhuz6ox4

Hi, how much your IQ btw? I just want to understand from your perspective. i got 130 when i was a kid and 131 couple months ago according to MENSA test. Just wanna read your discussion and other since I dont understand more than half of it.

Chess should be a draw if played perfectly by both sides. Looking at our current tablebases should make this obvious.

Any symmetrical starting position (with any combination of pieces) is a tablebase draw. The one obvious exception would be a starting position where White can immediately capture a piece, such as this:

White obviously wins here, because he can capture the rook on move 1. But in any actual starting position, there would be a pawn in front of each rook. Which would make it a tablebase draw, all over again:

Adding more pieces and pawns won't change this outcome - as long as the starting position is symmetrical, and the pieces are on their usual starting squares, it should always remain a tablebase draw.

We don't have 8-man tablebases yet, but when we do, this will obviously be a draw:

When we reach 12-man tablebases, this will obviously be a draw:

When we finally have 20-man tablebases, this will obviously be a draw:

All the way until we finally reach this position:

Tablebase draw. And it shouldn't surprise anybody.

(Of course, chess is extremely complex, and the fact that perfect play should be a draw doesn't make the game any easier ...)

linux mint users are very high iq, i love cinnamon

Well idk definition about perfect and how exactly stockfish work. But as far im understand stockfish combination about programming and data right? So it is artificial intellegence. The goal is more or less about win rate. Thats it. If u asking about 100 win rate it just mean gap stockfish and the opponent just unfair.

evan youre rated 400 lower than her in bullet give it up buddy

Symmetry of moves isn't what leads to chess being a draw.

Symmetry of starting positions is what makes the game a draw.

Here is a symmetrical starting position:

Let's say White plays 1.Nc3. Black can break the symmetry immediately and play something completely different.

The game is still a tablebase draw.

There are many paths toward a draw, from the starting position. Symmetry of moves is not required.

Here are a few ways that should lead to draw, with perfect play from both sides:

(And so on, and so forth ...)

Many paths all leading to the same destination ...

Why should Ra8+ be the only perfect move? First of all, it blunders a piece in one move. Next, you can't rely on stockfish in invalid positions. There isn't even a king on the board. Why should it even be possible for white to make a move?

That's not a symmetrical *starting position* (where pieces and pawns are on their original starting squares).

This is a symmetrical starting position:

What can you tell me about this position? (Hint: it rhymes with "straw").

Even computer make mistakes. Program is human made. I like the Piano. BTW.

I just feel the music. Thats it. Especially like my friend, Bad at singing but played passionately. I can feel joy. Strange... Maybe music is life idk.

You say that you have "proof" that Stockfish doesn't play perfectly. I also think that Stockfish doesn't play perfectly. But your "proof" is refuted by these points:

1. Stockfish and Alphazero were forced to play games starting from different starting positions/ openings. These openings aren't always equal. If one side has an advantage and perfectly holds this advantage, that side wins the game. Now you could argue that both sides played each opening with each side. This only proves that either Stockfish or Alphazero played imperfectly. E.g. Italian vs. Duras Gambit

 
 2. You state that their is no proof for the countless endgame studies published by grandmasters etc. You would find that if you analized all possibilities in the following position that white can always hold the draw. If you don't believe me, feel free to waste your time doing so.

3. Most of your countless theories over the last three pages only apply if one assumes there is only one perfect move in any given position. In multiple positions there are multiple perfect moves, e.g. multiple mate in ones:

4. You assume that chess computers work by thinking what could positionally or tactically be the best move and playing it. This assumption is false. Chess computers play moves by evaluating positions 90 moves + into the future taking all possible variations into consideration. They stop analyzing a branch of variations if they finish analyzing one "twig" of variations and evaluate that the other side is better. Since they are are programmed to be able to last as long against or beat opponents with the same strengths as themselves. The only reason why chess computers haven't "solved" chess yet is because there is no computer or software in use that has enough computing power to run through every possible variation. If a government e.g. the US would waste their Quantum Computer to run Stockfish they would be able to "solve" chess.

If you feel like I have raised any incorrect points, please let me know.

it is also true for this mate in 11 moves there are several solutions that lead to a perfect game

but the openings take turns, but the same,
in a game stockfish lost with black openings Center game, Paulsen attack, against Lc Zero, in the 24 TCEC superfinal tournament
and then stockfish failed to win with white but a draw, same openings, Center game, Paulsen attack
if in fact the opening was handicapped enough for black to lose, then he should have won with white, and stockfish couldn't win,
game 1 and 2 of TCEC tournament 24 superfinal

https://tcec-chess.com/#div=sf&game=1&season=24

I did not say that there is a possible solution, there can be several, as there can also be only one,
what I said is that if there is mate in 1, the perfect thing is to make it mate in 1 and not in 2, or in more

I think choosing M1 is considered the Best Move whereas choosing M2 is an Excellent Move followed by the Best Move.

Like I said, I agree with you that Stockfish doesn't play perfectly, but for your proof to be valid you should have delivered that Argument. @CraigIreland It is considered to be the best move, but it leads to the same and forced outcome.

If you want to multiply 15 with 10, almost every human being would multiply 15 x 10 directly and get 150 as a sum. You could also break apart the equation to 15 x (5 x 2) and get the same answer 150. The second solution is as correct as the first one, it just takes another (sometimes necessary) step.