If you're going to insult technical language as inaccurate, it's best not to pick on anything in STEM... game theory is a branch of mathematics, so it's easy to guess that "ultra weak" will have both a precise and meaningful definition.
Any other field though, sure, both their language (and ideas) are often inexact and even frivolous.
#3705
"without the 50 move rule chess is likely a forced win for white"
++ No, not at all. The 50 moves rule is in practice never invoked before the 7 men endgame table base is reached, neither in top GM games, nor in ICCF correspondence.
Without the 3-fold repetition rule it might be a win, because the 3-fold repetition is a major drawing resource both in GM games and in ICCF correspondence. I mean 3 fold repetition is a loss, like in Stratego or Go.
Of course, if you wish to interpret any disagreement with a person, who is assumed to be more knowledgeable, as an insult to them, then that is your affair
Your words were <<As jargon, "ultra weak" is just another bit of complete nonsense, invented by people who didn't know any better.>>
This is false and an unjustifiable insult to the game theorist who invented the term (just to be clear, that was not me, so your most recent post is - surprise, surprise - also false).
"Ultra-weak" is a meaningful and useful term used by game theorists in several 21st century peer-reviewed papers, for example:
Calculating Ultra-Strong and Extended Solutions for Nine Men's Morris, Morabaraba, and Lasker Morris - IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 8(3), July 2014
The previous page of circular logic brought to you from a guy claiming exceptional clarity...and now back to our show.
Chess would have been solved way before this bickering ends, were it not for human mortality.
That's an interesting take what makes you think its a forced win for white. I assume the opposite based on the fact that nearly every engine with the same programming from the starting position draws. What makes you think white would have a forced winning line. What line do you think white uses for this advantage seems like stockfish at high depth right now likes queens gambit declines but whenever i do things like depth 60 fish vs fish move for move its always a draw. Granted I'm pretty sure it has the 50 move rule built in.
Yes, and with the 50 move rule, I agree, it's probably a draw. But without it, it's likely a forced win for white.
The reason is because longer and longer forced wins are being found from what was otherwise assumed and thought to be draws. There didn't used to be such things as "white to play and win in 256 moves". But now there is. I know these forced wins are in endgames with only a few pieces, but more and more are being found. And they are longer and longer forced wins.
I think it's only a matter of time before one of these very long and complex positions can be forced from the opening position.
That's an interesting take what makes you think its a forced win for white. I assume the opposite based on the fact that nearly every engine with the same programming from the starting position draws. What makes you think white would have a forced winning line. What line do you think white uses for this advantage seems like stockfish at high depth right now likes queens gambit declines but whenever i do things like depth 60 fish vs fish move for move its always a draw. Granted I'm pretty sure it has the 50 move rule built in.
This is a recurrent question. I remember when Patriot started to argue that, She wrote that she deliberately chose a position based more on a coin toss than a conviction. I think that's code for "deliberately chose the opposing view". Later, I recall her saying that she's more and more convinced that it's true. However, I know she's an intelligent, diplomatic and probably obstinate woman. I find it hard to believe that any intelligent person believes that it's a forced win, although there is a strand of thought based on the new and wondrous idea that games that are beyond the limits of human endurance may be wins. I don't buy that either. Then again, I don't believe an intelligent person can possibly believe that chess can be solved in five years and yet ....
Maybe I'm just not very intelligent. There is always that possibility.
But when I say it's only a matter of time, I certainly don't believe it will be five years. I don't even think it will be a hundred years.
We can't even prove chess isn't a win for black. I think a lot of people in here don't understand what it means and what it requires to solve a game like chess.
#3722
"longer and longer forced wins are being found"
++ That does not mean those positions can be reached from the initial position by reasonable play. In ICCF correspondence players can claim a win that exceeds 50 moves without capture or pawn move in a 7-men endgame position. Such claims never occur. Draw claims in 7-men endgame positions occur frequently.
#3724
"We can't even prove chess isn't a win for black."
++ Here comes some strategy stealing.
If 1 e4 c5 were a win for black, then 1 c3 e5 2 c4 would be a win for white.
#3705
" for all practical purposes chess has already been solved"
++ 'weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game theoretic value against any opposition'
The strategy to achieve the draw is to follow an ICCF WC drawn game for as long as possible and when white deviates, then follow the analysis of that ICCF WC drawn game.
#3724
"We can't even prove chess isn't a win for black."
++ Here comes some strategy stealing.
If 1 e4 c5 were a win for black, then 1 c3 e5 2 c4 would be a win for white.
That doesn't work because black wouldn't play e5
Truth is that, no matter how hard the question, if you flip a coin you have 50% chance of being right.
#3722
"longer and longer forced wins are being found"
++ That does not mean those positions can be reached from the initial position by reasonable play. In ICCF correspondence players can claim a win that exceeds 50 moves without capture or pawn move in a 7-men endgame position. Such claims never occur. Draw claims in 7-men endgame positions occur frequently.
That's right, it doesn't mean that. Yet. But I think everyone agrees longer and longer forced mates are being found where they didn't exist before. And many of those forced wins only exist without the 50 move rule.
From what I understand there are now forced mates in 500 moves. I suspect that in some of these forced mates there are sequences of moves that are longer than 50 moves with no capture.
So I think as time goes by and computers get better and better at figuring this stuff out we will probably see longer and longer forced mates, with more and more pieces. I expect someday there will be forced mates in 900, or even much more. And eventually at least one of these incredibly complex positions can be forced from the opening position.
@lFPatriotGames
It could be down to personality type. Maybe you have a "something surprising is always just around the corner" reaction to the unknown.
Looked at in the sober light of true misery, however, it's been thought for a century or more that chess is innately drawn. I would suggest that any suggestion that it isn't cannot be down to knowledge, so much as personality type. All we have that's truly different is computers. There isn't any suggestion that they have or will find anything that contradicts the normal acceptance that it's drawn. If white seems to have an edge at any given time, it's easier to put it down to programming techniques that occasionally favour white, before enhanced defensive techniques catch up. So, all we really have is the idea that shuffling the pieces for a thousand moves or more may produce a win. The retort would be that that's just more of the same. Slower and subtler maybe; but the same.
It's been thought for a long time that white starts with an advantage and every subsequent pair of moves tends to even out that advantage. That seems to be amply demonstrated. Therefore it would require a surprising turn of events, to say the least, to suddenly upset that well-established trend. It would require something similar to the surprising event that is thought by many (not by me) to have kickstarted the universe, in the form of the Big Bang. That's termed a singularity ... a unique event with no obvious cause. Some believe the Big Bang account ... I don't. I don't believe that the equalisation trend in chess can be upset, either, except by an error.
Maybe. But one thing is for sure, people have a persistent habit of being very wrong.
It seems like no matter the field, no matter who is involved, no matter the circumstances, there are always things being discovered that are the opposite of what was accepted as true.
I think it takes a tremendous amount of faith to say "it has to be this way" when there is so much precedence that says otherwise.
#3722
"longer and longer forced wins are being found"
++ That does not mean those positions can be reached from the initial position by reasonable play. In ICCF correspondence players can claim a win that exceeds 50 moves without capture or pawn move in a 7-men endgame position. Such claims never occur. Draw claims in 7-men endgame positions occur frequently.
That's right, it doesn't mean that. Yet. But I think everyone agrees longer and longer forced mates are being found where they didn't exist before. And many of those forced wins only exist without the 50 move rule.
From what I understand there are now forced mates in 500 moves. I suspect that in some of these forced mates there are sequences of moves that are longer than 50 moves with no capture.
So I think as time goes by and computers get better and better at figuring this stuff out we will probably see longer and longer forced mates, with more and more pieces. I expect someday there will be forced mates in 900, or even much more. And eventually at least one of these incredibly complex positions can be forced from the opening position.
If we're going to disregard the rules that only exist to force every game to end in a reasonable timeframe, I'd love to see the collective world's computing power get stuck simulating a scenario in which both players move a knight out and back ad infinitum. As in, 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Ng1 Ng8....
#3735
"And many of those forced wins only exist without the 50 move rule." ++ Many forced wins with up to 7 men need more than 50 moves without capture or pawn move, and could be claimed as wins in ICCF correspondence, but such claims never happen: the positions never occur.
"we will probably see longer and longer forced mates, with more and more pieces"
++ You start with 16 pawns and 16 non-pawns. Pawns tend to move. Pieces tend to get traded. The 50 moves rule is never invoked with > 7 men in ICCF or in GM games. There is always a compelling reason to move a pawn or trade in a real game.
#3722
"longer and longer forced wins are being found"
++ That does not mean those positions can be reached from the initial position by reasonable play. In ICCF correspondence players can claim a win that exceeds 50 moves without capture or pawn move in a 7-men endgame position. Such claims never occur. Draw claims in 7-men endgame positions occur frequently.
That's right, it doesn't mean that. Yet. But I think everyone agrees longer and longer forced mates are being found where they didn't exist before. And many of those forced wins only exist without the 50 move rule.
From what I understand there are now forced mates in 500 moves. I suspect that in some of these forced mates there are sequences of moves that are longer than 50 moves with no capture.
So I think as time goes by and computers get better and better at figuring this stuff out we will probably see longer and longer forced mates, with more and more pieces. I expect someday there will be forced mates in 900, or even much more. And eventually at least one of these incredibly complex positions can be forced from the opening position.
If we're going to disregard the rules that only exist to force every game to end in a reasonable timeframe, I'd love to see the collective world's computing power get stuck simulating a scenario in which both players move a knight out and back ad infinitum.
Wouldn't that be covered under the 3 fold repetition rule? It doesn't seem like that rule would make any difference in solving chess or not, the 50 move rule would make a difference though since some very complex positions require more than 50 moves to make the necessary progress.
If we are talking about ICCF games or GM games, sure, chess will never be solved and it's probably a draw. But I was thinking about chess itself, without the relatively new rules meant to help people end games quicker.
#3684
"The 10^44 number is supported by a large number of people, 10^17 is supported by one. "
++ 10^44 is the correct number of legal positions, i.e. the number of positions in a 32-men table base to strongly solve chess.
To weakly solve chess only the subset of sensible, reachable, and relevant positions is needed: 10^17. Losing Chess has been weakly solved visiting only 10^9 positions, not 10^44.
1. You are incorrect, your proposed solution does not even meet the criteria for an ultra weak solution.
2. Losing Chess is a garbage game, and forced captures are a dream for easy solving. They do not remotely compare, and you know it.
2.
Losing chess is a different game from chess. It's enjoyable, in its way. I would think it's roughly as related to chess as draughts or checkers is, so it isn't altogether irrelevant.
1. <<<<<You are incorrect, your proposed solution does not even meet the criteria for an ultra weak solution.>>>>>
There's probably no such thing as an ultra-weak solution, if it's basically the assessment as to whether chess is a draw. That's because the surrounding solution is absolutely necessary to achieve it. As jargon, "ultra weak" is just another bit of complete nonsense, invented by people who didn't know any better.
Unfortunately, while the conclusion for chess a reasonable belief, your unfortunate and (to be frank) characteristic inappropriate insult towards very intelligent people more knowledgeable than us merely reveals your lack of understanding. That is a hazard of such types of statements.
The reason is that there are plenty of examples of games where an ultraweak solution exists. This certainly makes the term meaningful (and useful to game theorists).
A large class of such games is where the rules ensure that the result is a win for one player or the other (no draws) and strategy-stealing is possible. It is simple to prove the first player has a winning strategy in such games, yet in complex examples it may be impractical to determine what this strategy is. Note that in many other games where draws are possible, the same argument shows the second player cannot have a winning strategy. Tictactoe and many variants are examples of this.
[To be clear, the rules of games like chess, shogi, checkers and go don't enable this useful technique].