Still chess is an great sport. The fact that it's been compared with great subject maths is such an great thing.. i don't anything much to say tho at this argument because at first place i was saying like chess can't get solved as maths=chess..
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Whatever let the conclusion be.. it's ok
May 31, 2022
0
#2604
sachin884 wrote:
playerafar wrote:
Chess won't be solved in five years. Maybe not in five billion years.
But in five years - this forum might still be here.
It can be solved bro and it will
Maybe in five gazillion years - if humanity is still around
The number of possible chess positions is Finite.
That really is factual. Really is binary A or B Correct.
As to chess 'solved in our lifetimes' is that possible ?
Not with pseudologic.
Could it be done if there were good enough algorithms - which can also be called software ?
Not with current software. Nor with Snake Oil arguments in the software.
The programmers in the table base projects know the difficulties.
If interviewed they might talk about all of them ...
but to admit some things would one need Sodium Pentothal to get the info out of them?
There's this thing called funding and another thing called 'esprit de corps'
But I don't think the difficulties are top secret or involve a 'conspiracy'
But the programmers would have disdain for talking about same.
Ask an astronaut about his trip to the moon -
offer him paid public interviews ...
but if his contract includes having to talk about how difficult manned space travel would be to Alpha Centauri ... (the nearest star to our sun)
possible response: 'I don't know how you're going to get good viewership from that one ... I'd want a lot more money for that public interview and if you're smart enough to have that kind of money - you wouldn't pay it anyway.."
playerafar wrote:
sachin884 wrote:
playerafar wrote:
Chess won't be solved in five years. Maybe not in five billion years.
But in five years - this forum might still be here.
It can be solved bro and it will
Maybe in five gazillion years - if humanity is still around
The number of possible chess positions is Finite.
That really is factual. Really is binary A or B Correct.
As to chess 'solved in our lifetimes' is that possible ?
Not with pseudologic.
Could it be done if there were good enough algorithms - which can also be called software ?
Not with current software. Nor with Snake Oil arguments in the software.
The programmers in the table base projects know the difficulties.
If interviewed they might talk about all of them ...
but to admit some things would one need Sodium Pentothal to get the info out of them?
There's this thing called funding and another thing called 'esprit de corps'
But I don't think the difficulties are top secret or involve a 'conspiracy'
But the programmers would have disdain for talking about same.
Ask an astronaut about his trip to the moon -
offer him paid public interviews ...
but if his contract includes having to talk about how difficult manned space travel would be to Alpha Centauri ... (the nearest star)
possible response: 'I don't know how you're going to get good viewership from that one ... I'd want a lot more money for that public interview and if you're smart enough to have that kind of money - you wouldn't pay it anyway.."
I thought the sun was the nearest star.
May 31, 2022
0
#2606
"I thought the sun was the nearest star."
Alpha Centauri is the nearest star to our sun.
As for travel to the sun - that one also with difficulties.
Heat.
Can't resist this next ...
Two inmates in a psychiatric prison are talking.
"We're going to escape."
Other inmate: "But where will we go?"
"We're going to steal a spaceship."
Other: "To go where??"
"To the Sun"
'To the Sun ?? Hey its kind of hot there !"
First inmate: "Its okay. We're going to land on it at night".
Optimissed wrote:
sachin884 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
The article in 3154 has no value. Mathematics is potentially infinite, so the entirely cannot be discovered. Chess seems to be pseudo-finite. Theoretically it can be fully solved but it will probably never happen.
Maths nerd right???? See chess also can get solved and maths is never infinite.. and the statement you have used that chess is pseudo finite is just lame and untrue
No I'm not. I'm 137 years old. 1039 next birthday. My son's a maths nerd. In maths, new methods are found as and when they're wanted. It's limitless. With chess though, although the board and number of pieces are finite, the number of possible games is also limitless. I've got an argument going with someone. I'm saying that chess is really infinite. I'd say only pseudo-finite, which is it pretends to be finite but it isn't. He says it's finite. I think might be someone called btickler. He isn't very bright.
You don't have an argument going with me on this subject...only in your own head.
I will let the juxtaposition of your bipolar-ish post and my reply speak for itself in terms of who isn't very bright.
May 31, 2022
0
#2608
Somebody (not btickler) obsessed with his conceptions of intelligence levels again.
He always gravitates back to that. Its too bad -
because if he could refrain from that and related personalizations - he would be a better poster more likely to be worth reading and replying to.
Apparently its projection and projection of projection - part of forcing him down the same obsessive path. Year in year out.
Otherwise - he could correct it probably.
Concerns his postings. Not personal life. He apparently wants to inform us about that - but others can ignore that and thus avoid personalization from their end.
It all has the effect of making the guy spamming 'five years' ...
look good.
I deleted my previous post (before @ytgx reply), because it was not accurate and clear enough. The first attempt to post this revised one apparently failed.
About the game-theoretic value, many theorists and players are at least not 100% sure it is a draw, e.g. (emphases mine):
"I think it's almost definite that the game is a draw theoretically" Fischer
"We do not know for a fact that the starting position is a draw, but it does seem like a safe assumption - Rowson 2005.
So there is indeed a "reasonable doubt" that the game is a draw. Apart from that, as I said earlier the modern view on science is that the only real proof is a mathematical proof. But let's assume that we can consider something "scientifically proven" the old way, i.e. a theory is proven, if experiments consistently confirm it. Can we say that it is scientifically proven that the game-theoretic value of chess is a draw? Imo no, because the game-theoretic value is the
best outcome that a player can force. If we don't know for sure that the value is forced, the experiments that we can run (games between more or less strong players) cannot confirm nor contradict the statement. The increasing draw rate in games between engines of the same strength, and in particular in autoplay, can be explained with the increasing stability of the evaluation functions, both because of the introduction of neural networks, and because the evaluations become (on average) more stable with depth.
For this reasons it becomes more and more difficult to overcome an opponent of the same strength, but that does not mean that the game value is a draw. I think that if the increasing drawing rate depended on the game-theoretic value, we should not see the playing strength and ratings of the top engines increase at the current rate.
Now why I insist on that, when I too think that the game value is likely a draw (for other reasons)? Because @tygxc would like to use that value to indirectly prevent the exploration of an awful lot of lines, lines that in fact might disprove the assumption that the game value is a draw. That's not methodologically correct, to say the best. I post again the other parts I deleted earlier.
tygxc wrote:
The mythical forced win is a unicorn. Some believe in unicorns, but no traces of such animals have ever been found. You cannot prove they do not exist. Maybe they always hide. The believers must prove they exist.
A scientific proof that a weak solution can be achieved in 5 years is a unicorn, for all the things written so far in this thread.
"How can be determined whether they are balanced, if the game is not solved?"
++ The organisers of TCEC each year select 50 slightly unbalanced openings. Most end in double draws and thus are balanced after all. Some end in double losses and thus are busted. A few end in a loss and a draw and thus are slightly unbalanced [ . . . ]
Definitions and proofs by example.
"The effect of the opening on the final outcome is not proven"
++ It is. Some openings are busted.
See above.
Some openings are analysed to a draw. They are shunned as well in top play and ICCF.
Obviously I was saying in general, so the effect of "balanced" or "unbalanced" openings will be generally determined after a weak solution.
"no scientist ever says something like "this is true, but not proven""
That is what the Scientific American article said.
Can you see that you repeat things at some point, instead of addressing the objections? "Provability is a higher degree of truth" is an unreferenced, out of the context, ambiguous and unfocused statement. Therefore, it's unacceptable.
Do you consider it proven by mathematician Tromp that there are 10^44 legal chess positions?
It's an estimation, not a proof.
May 31, 2022
0
#2610
Let's example one of @tygxc's claims. Well, three of them, in italics
The organisers of TCEC each year select 50 slightly unbalanced openings.
So, whatever "balanced" means, these openings aren't it.
- Most end in double draws and thus are balanced after all.
Contradicting the assumption made above.
i.e. if two games from a position are draws the position is "balanced" (whatever that might mean. It doesn't seem to be "draw with perfect play"). - Some end in double losses and thus are busted.
Also contradicting the assumption made above.
i.e. likewise, if a sample of two random games end in losses the position is a loss - A few end in a loss and a draw and thus are slightly unbalanced
Apparently being the only one of the three not to contradict the assumption, but not really.
i.e. if a small number get different results, the position is definitively not "balanced", because a sample of 2 provides a perfect estimate of the mean value.
There's no need to argue with @tygxc: he contradicts himself every second line.
Useful observations are that if "balanced" refers to some empirical concept like the expected score (with some given assumptions about the players) then individual results are SAMPLES from a random distribution with the MEAN AVERAGE SCORE being the value to which "balanced" refers. Samples of 2 are not the gold standard in statistics and you can only make weak probabilistic conclusions from such a sample.
There are actually other better statistics for the 3-value game of chess. The probability of a win for either side is a 2-dimensional statistic which fully describes the statistics of an outcome. Technically this is called a (3-value) multinomial (by analogy with a binomial where there are 2 results.
Hey
May 31, 2022
0
#2614
I do remember seeing here here !
Which is plausible use in the meaning of that word.
So I'll change it back.
May 31, 2022
0
#2615
Elroch wrote:
Let's example one of @tygxc's claims. Well, three of them, in italics
The organisers of TCEC each year select 50 slightly unbalanced openings.
So, whatever "balanced" means, these openings aren't it.
- Most end in double draws and thus are balanced after all.
Contradicting the assumption made above.
i.e. if two games from a position are draws the position is "balanced" (whatever that might mean. It doesn't seem to be "draw with perfect play"). - Some end in double losses and thus are busted.
Also contradicting the assumption made above.
i.e. likewise, if a sample of two random games end in losses the position is a loss - A few end in a loss and a draw and thus are slightly unbalanced
Apparently being the only one of the three not to contradict the assumption, but not really.
i.e. if a small number get different results, the position is definitively not "balanced", because a sample of 2 provides a perfect estimate of the mean value.
There's no need to argue with @tygxc: he contradicts himself every second line.
Here here ! (British expression. I don't know if its used much there.)
Probably 'Tally Ho!' not used much either.
'Jolly good!' is one of my favourites !
May 31, 2022
0
#2616
The "Greatest Theoretical Novelty" will solve Chess.
Besides that, Chess should always end in a Draw.
See
http://365chess.com/opening.php
May 31, 2022
0
#2617
'No mistakes should end in a draw' ...
but its too general.
Maybe 1) f4 someday will be found to lose. Maybe. (Unlikely)
But that doesn't mean its a mistake now.
'No mistakes.' - except with present knowledge one can't know as to all mistakes.
So 'no mistakes ends in a draw'- might be a good playing and studying approach ... but not a good science/maths approach.
Its a suggestion - not an axiom.
Optimissed wrote:
haiaku wrote:
"I think it's almost definite that the game is a draw theoretically" Fischer
"We do not know for a fact that the starting position is a draw, but it does seem like a safe assumption - Rowson 2005.
Hi, I don't think that's "reasonable doubt". Both are saying they think it's drawn. It seems as though they're just coveing themselves; not wishing to be outspoken. It isn't evidence that they really think it may be a win.
Hi. Possible, but I think they at least think that the evidence is not enough for a scientific proof: would they be so cautious, otherwise?
Optimissed wrote:
haiaku wrote:
Apart from that, as I said earlier the modern view on science is that the only real proof is a mathematical proof.
Disagree. But who am I to disagree with anyone? Just that mathematics is used as a depiction of observed results and there can be inaccuracies in the observations and also in methodology shortcuts. Normally, things are described as accurate within limits or an error margin.
Agree, but that's another reason to say that, apart from mathematics, strictly speaking science cannot prove things.
Optimissed wrote:
haiaku wrote:
But let's assume that we can consider something "scientifically proven" the old way, i.e. a theory is proven, if experiments consistently confirm it. Can we say that it is scientifically proven that the game-theoretic value of chess is a draw? Imo no, because the game-theoretic value is the best outcome that a player can force. If we don't know for sure that the value is forced, the experiments that we can run (games between more or less strong players) cannot confirm nor contradict the statement. The increasing draw rate in games between engines of the same strength, and in particular in autoplay, can be explained with the increasing stability of the evaluation functions, both because of the introduction of neural networks, and because the evaluations become (on average) more stable with depth.
I think you're just describing normal, experimental error. There's no reason to assume that a way is going to be found to eliminate it and when we describe something as "proven" it really can be via the pragmatic method.
There is a difference, though. We can scientifically prove which is the accuracy of the devices used to measure physical quantities, and we have a variety of statistical tools to analyze samples. So, roughly speaking, when we measure a phenomenon we can assume that the mean of the sampled data is the "real" value of the physical quantity we are measuring, within a confidence interval. In our case, I don't think we can say that the outcome we more often observe, is the best that actually can be forced.
haiaku wrote:
For this reasons it becomes more and more difficult to overcome an opponent of the same strength, but that does not mean that the game value is a draw. I think that if the increasing drawing rate depended on the game-theoretic value, we should not see the playing strength and ratings of the top engines increase at the current rate.
I don't follow that so it must be a piece of inductive thinking. It doesn't seem safe or relevant.
Of course, it's not safe (in fact I said "I think")! I wrote that, because @tygxc claims his explanations for the observed data are the only possible ones. I just think that other explanations are more plausible, but equally not sufficient for a proof.
#3194
++ The last completed ICCF WC had 127 draws, 6 white wins 3 black wins.
I explain these data under the assumption that chess is a draw: 126 perfect games with no errors, 1 draw with 2 errors, 9 decisive games with 1 error. I can even pinpoint the 1 error in the 9 decisive games.
-> Please tell under the assumption that chess were a white win:
How many of the 127 draws have 1 error, 3 errors, 5 errors... ?
How many of the 6 white wins have 0 errors, 2 errors, 4 errors...?
How many of the 3 black wins have 2 errors, 4 errors, 6 errors...?
++ Do you consider proven to your satisfaction:
"the number of legal chess positions is approximately (4.82 +- 0.03) * 10^44" ?
Jun 1, 2022
0
#2620
You can't cut off over half the digits of that number -
reducing it to less than a trillionth of a trillionth of its previous value -
arguing that's a legitimate reduction - and then have a valid 'solution' of chess. Not even a 'weak' one.
It would be like saying - 'travel to the nearest star to our sun can be reduced from many thousands of years to a few days - just by taking the square root of the distance' 'After all - root can be spelled 'route' '
Its Fair and Square !'
As a Fairy tale - yes ... its Fair.
Chess won't be solved in five years. Maybe not in five billion years.
But in five years - this forum might still be here.
It can be solved bro and it will