#3026
"If you say "there is no doubt", then it's 100% sure and thus proven."
++ When something is known, then there is no doubt, it is 100% sure, but the proof may not be available.
We know 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white, there is no doubt, but there is no proof that works out all possible variations to checkmate. Proving it poses no problem, but it is not worthwhile to burn computer time on it, precisely because the outcome is not in any doubt.
Likewise we know 1 a4 is not superior to 1 d4 or 1 e4. Capablanca said so: 1 e4 and 1 d4 accomplish more than 1 a4. AlphaZero concurs.
No. AlphaZero outputs probabilities. It is uncertain about the outcome of every move (except where complete analysis to a result is possible). The move that it assesses to have a higher probability of a good result, it views as better. It is sometimes wrong (to the extent that its decisions lose).
And Capablanca is less reliable than AlphaZero.
#3026
"If you say "there is no doubt", then it's 100% sure and thus proven."
++ When something is known, then there is no doubt, it is 100% sure, but the proof may not be available.
We know 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white, there is no doubt, but there is no proof that works out all possible variations to checkmate. Proving it poses no problem, but it is not worthwhile to burn computer time on it, precisely because the outcome is not in any doubt.
Likewise we know 1 a4 is not superior to 1 d4 or 1 e4. Capablanca said so: 1 e4 and 1 d4 accomplish more than 1 a4. AlphaZero concurs. There is no doubt about it. It is 100% sure, but there is no proof available. Proving it is problematic in practice and nearly as demanding as proving 1 d4 and 1 e4 draw. However, once 1 d4 and 1 e4 are proven draws, then by the same methodology 1 a4 can be proven to draw too.
Likewise we know the opposite color bishop endgame is a draw and the ICCF grandmasters were right to agree on a draw. There would be no point in playing it out till a 3-fold repetition or a table base draw. If one of both had thought he had even the smallest chance of winning, then he would not have offered or declined the draw and they would have continued for months until all doubt was removed for both.
Likewise we know the KRBPPPP vs. KRNPPPP endgame with symmetrical pawns on 1 wing is a draw and the ICCF grandmasters were right to agree on a draw. There would be no point in playing it out till a 3-fold repetition or a table base draw. If one of both had thought he had even the smallest chance of winning, then he would not have offered or declined the draw and they would have continued for months until all doubt was removed for both.