#3221
1 g4 might lose by force.
#3223
There are many Mr Boastalot here on this forum, but none has the scientific (MSc. Eng., almost PhD. Eng.) and chess credentials (GM, World Champion 65+, author of theory books) of Sveshnikov.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
tygxc wrote:
You dodge my questions and then you falsely claim you have answered them.
As to the objections it is mostly like I did not read this -> I do not understand this -> it must be wrong -> it is unproven -> it is not true.
Hypotheses and jumps to conclusions. Just explain why do you think those objections are wrong and move on.
Again: ICCF I say chess is a draw, you say.....?
127 draws, I say 126 games with 0 errors, 1 game with 2 errors, you say....?
6 white wins, I say 6 games with 1 error, you say ....?
3 black wins, I say 3 games with 1 error, you say ...?
I said it's impossible to say before a weak solution has been determined, post(2). Maybe it's you who doesn't read!
Example:
You say: chess is a white win, 127 draws with 1 error, 6 white wins with 0 errors, 3 black wins with 2 errors. This makes no sense the distribution of 0 - 1 - 2 errors would be 6 - 127 - 3. There is no explicable reason for the distribution to peak at 1 error. Another try [ . . . ]
I said that your calculation of the error rate per move is flawed, starting from the unproven assumption that the game value is a draw and then using it to prevent the exploration of a horrible number of lines that could disprove the assumption itself, post(1).
There are many Mr Boastalot here on this forum, but none has the scientific (MSc. Eng., almost PhD. Eng.) [ . . . ]
I'm not sure about that, but anyway we do not to appeal to authorities, do we? Nonetheless, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
#3226
I said that (a) chess is a draw and (b) 126 games with 0 errors, 9 games with 1 error and 1 game with 2 errors are the only way to explain the data: 127 draws, 6 white wins, 3 black wins.
You only say: "it's impossible to say before a weak solution has been determined"
So you dodge the question and implicitly acknowledge the correctness of my claims.
I say no other explanation is possible. If you dispute that, then come up with an explanation:
Game theoretic value? Number of games with 0, 1, 2, 3... errors?
I say draw, 126 - 9 - 1
"we do not to appeal to authorities" ++ No, but when one of the world leading analysts said something about chess analysis, then people should at least consider it instead of dismissing it on no grounds at all. Weakly solving chess is the ultimate chess analysis.
Optimissed wrote:
It seems to me that we can analyse the accuracy of measuring equipment to our hearts' content but we cannot be sure, in any complex undertaking, that we aren't missing a hidden variable, which could come into play in a manner we do not foresee. Hence all science is pragmatic and experimantally based, and "science" isn't the theory, which is then developed to attempt to give the best possible explanation of what is actually going on.
Hi, we do agree that experiments cannot give 100% of certainity about what we measure (is it the real value of that physical quantity? Does it even correspond to reality – phenomenon or noumenon?) Even if we do accept these as the best proofs we can get, they are usually obtained after statistical hypothesis testing, which is based on theories already targeted by an avalanche of criticism. In our case, if we assume that the game is a draw, the evidence does not support very well the null hypothesis (the hypothesis that wins are due only to chance), because White wins more than Black, but there are other problems: do players draw because perfect players cannot get more than that, when they confront other perfect players, or they draw because they do not know how to win? Are better players closer to perfection, or do they play less random, but also more biased moves? Using Bayesian inference, as alternative to statistical tests, does not solve these problems.
The main point is that @tygxc claims that the assumption of the game-theoretic value as a draw makes it possible to cut away a priori an enormous amount of lines, which in fact might disprove the assumption itself; such "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
tygxc wrote:
I said that (a) chess is a draw and (b) 126 games with 0 errors, 9 games with 1 error and 1 game with 2 errors are the only way to explain the data: 127 draws, 6 white wins, 3 black wins.
You only say: "it's impossible to say before a weak solution has been determined"
So you dodge the question and implicitly acknowledge the correctness of my claims.
No, I said that it's impossible to establish the number of errors per game from the fact that most of them, at high level, are draws. Read my previous post.
I say no other explanation is possible. If you dispute that, then come up with an explanation:
Are you kidding me? from post(1): "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."
My explanation is independent from the game-theoretic value and the number of errors per game, errors which obviously will be known only after a weak solution, as you yourself admitted in another post(8):
tygxc wrote:
"The real "accuracy" (not that computed by engines or by you) will be known (i.e. by proof) only after the solution."
++ Yes, that is true. It will all be known after it is done.
I think there is no basis even for an estimation.
"we do not to appeal to authorities" ++ No, but when one of the world leading analysts said something about chess analysis, then people should at least consider it instead of dismissing it on no grounds at all.
I did not dismiss what Sveshnikov said on "solving" chess. Indeed, I have probably considered it even too much. It's you, who dismiss what all the others (experts or not) say about the topic.
Optimissed wrote:
Your technique is wrong. You're doing what he wants, which is relying on specifics, data etc, which he knows is subject to interpretation and can be made the basis of any subjectively-based claim. It's necessary to have an overview, which is that he ignores all good arguments or pretends to refute them on the basis of repetition of meaningingless data. When a person makes a bad argument or one that's ambiguous, that's what is focussed on. The method is identical to Coolout or bticker. Endless diversion and repetition, that's all, in the expectation that someone loses focus.
His arguments are far more cogent and coherent than yours. Stay in your own lane. Plenty to fix there.
Optimissed wrote:
Your technique is wrong. You're doing what he wants, which is relying on specifics, data etc, which he knows is subject to interpretation and can be made the basis of any subjectively-based claim. It's necessary to have an overview, which is that he ignores all good arguments or pretends to refute them on the basis of repetition of meaningingless data. When a person makes a bad argument or one that's ambiguous, that's what is focussed on. [ . . . ]
Yes, he ignores objections (even subjective ones) that he doesn't know how to challenge, denying they have even been raised. He is attempting an argumentum ad nauseam. Maybe we can ask the moderators to just close the thread in light of that?
#2329
"About 20 people have provided various arguments."
1 Sveshnikov > 20 weak players
#3237
"ask the moderators to just close the thread"
++ We cannot handle the truth, so let us forbid to talk about it.
Let Galileo swear that the Earth does not revolve around the Sun.
There is a solution to Chess. Heres why:
Chess has many limiting rules that makes its largest possible moves a finite number therefore solvable and they are:
1. Time constraint
2. 3 move repetition
and 3. 50 move rule
Jun 4, 2022
0
#2652
XOXOXOexpert wrote:
There is a solution to Chess. Heres why:
Chess has many limiting rules that makes its largest possible moves a finite number therefore solvable and they are:
1. Time constraint
2. 3 move repetition
and 3. 50 move rule
'Time constraint' is apparently never used in the table base projects and almost never used in discussions about solving chess.
The other two things are used - but so far in these discussions its my humble opinion that 3-fold and 50 move rules have been presented insistently and technically rather than with perspective.
Arguments about terminology rather than trying to present those factors generically.
Regarding any project to 'solve' chess ... it should be recognized there are multiple projects within the bigger project.
Most of the posts are reactions to or defenses of an invalid '5 years to solve' because of 'nodes' and Sveshnikov and arbitrarily cutting the number of positions to be solved to less than a quintillionth of its value.
Having said that though - this being a chess site means that the marketing is directed towards clients who 'have time'. 
ty
@tygxc, how much money the project would require?
#3243
rental for 5 years of 3 cloud engines of 10^9 nodes/s each as modern computers plus 3 (ICCF) grandmasters as good assistants cost a few million $.
The most feasible is probably to run a pre-project for just 1 ECO code.
Checkers and Losing Chess have been solved by hobbyists using desktop computers.
Chess requires more.
A little vague, how many millions? Schaeffer is an hobbyst to you?
#3245
The rental fee for the engines is a matter of negociation.
IBM or Google might offer a discount in exchange for publicity.
Likewise the compensation for the good assistants. Some might do it for free out of interest, some might want to receive a decent pay so as to earn their cost of living.
I estimate like 3 million $ would do.
this topic is going off topic for sure.. as i said this is the conclusion:-it does not matter whether it gets solved or not.. all i matter that its an great BOARD AND MIND AND BRAIN game..BY ME ON CHESS
@tygxc, Schaeffer is an hobbyst, to you? How much for just one ECO code?
#3248
"Schaeffer is an hobbyst"
He is a professional computer scientist, but the 16 years of solving checkers were not his job, but rather some personal side-project, i.e. hobby.
The people that solved Losing Chess were professional mathematicians, but in their paper they describe themselves as hobbyists, so solving Losing Chess was a hobby to them.
"How much for just one ECO code?"
++ I estimate $100,000 for 1 ECO code. I suspect Carlsen, Nepo, Caruana, Karjakin and their teams of grandmasters and cloud engines already have solved a few ECO codes (Petrov, Berlin, Marshall, Sveshnikov) during their months of match preparation, but they obviously keep that to themselves. That is also why Sveshnikov published his analysis of B33 in 1988: as he was diagnosed with 3rd stage cancer he realised his ambitions as a professional player were over and so he could just as well publish his findings.
#3220
You dodge my questions and then you falsely claim you have answered them.
As to the objections it is mostly like I did not read this -> I do not understand this -> it must be wrong -> it is unproven -> it is not true.
Again:
ICCF
I say chess is a draw, you say.....?
127 draws, I say 126 games with 0 errors, 1 game with 2 errors, you say....?
6 white wins, I say 6 games with 1 error, you say ....?
3 black wins, I say 3 games with 1 error, you say ...?
Example:
You say:
chess is a white win
127 draws with 1 error
6 white wins with 0 errors
3 black wins with 2 errors
This makes no sense the distribution of 0 - 1 - 2 errors would be 6 - 127 - 3. There is no explicable reason for the distribution to peak at 1 error.
Another try
chess is a white win
127 draws 70 games with 1 error, 57 games with 3 errors
6 white wins with 0 errors
3 black wins with 2 errors
Makes no sense: a distribution of 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 errors of 6 - 70 - 3 - 57 makes no sense.
It is not monotonous.