Then prove it.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
tygxc wrote:
++ Many experts wrote chess is a draw and provided arguments, there is not yet a formal proof.
Produce one paper. Not a chess player, not a math hobbyist, but at the very least a Stockfish developer or the like. Hans Berliner would do.
If you can produce *one*, then we can tackle "many".
hi
Interesting article that may have bearing on this topic somewhere down the line...
https://news.yahoo.com/googles-quantum-supremacy-usurped-researchers-183622602.html
Apparently Google's quantum supremacy claim is not so supreme. Not that it ever amounted to much, since quantum supremacy was defined as quantum computers being able to do a single task faster than traditional computers, which is more like "quantum entry-level achievement".
tygxc wrote
Wikipedia gives a reference, but misquotes it.
This is what the source, a true Physicist wrote:
“Quantum mechanics” is the description of the behavior of matter and light in all its details and, in particular, of the happenings on an atomic scale.
No 'theory' here.
I said I was not going to argue with you for today, but you really amuse me. What reference and what source? That page gives a lot of sources, like (green enphases mine):
Explanatory note 2: Physicist John C. Baez cautions, "there's no way to understand the interpretation of quantum mechanics without also being able to solve quantum mechanics problems – to understand the theory, you need to be able to use it (and vice versa)"
Reference 20: Landau, L.D.; Lifschitz, E.M. (1977). Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic Theory. Vol. 3 (3rd ed.). Pergamon Press.
etc.
Sometimes a physicist mentions that QM, SR and GR are theories, other times s/he does not. As usual, you deliberately make use of "cherry picking".
Optimissed wrote:
I'm afraid they considered it so trivial and obvious that by coincidence, they all wrote it on toilet paper and flushed it away. Seriously, you really should not pose as an intellectual and ask people to produce "papers" when they are irrelevant. You'll just get what you asked for.
I get that sometimes you think yourself clever in these retorts, but no. Tygxc made a ridiculous claim, one that is easily refuted by asking for evidence. You, on the other hand, are just desperate to achieve the appearance of having bested me. It's not going to happen.
Aug 6, 2022
0
#3108
TheChessIntellectReturns wrote:
Imagine a chess position of X paradigms.
Now, a chess computer rated 3000 solves that position. All well and good.
Could another computer rated a zillion solve that position better than Rybka?
No, because not even chess computer zillion could solve the Ruy Lopez better than a sad FIDE master could.
the point is, there's chess positions with exact solutions. Either e4, or d4, or c4, etc.
nothing in the world can change that.
So if you are talking about chess as a competitive sport, then chess has already been solved by kasparov, heck, by capablanca.
If you are talking chess as a meaningless sequence of algorithms, where solving chess equates not to logical solutions of positional and tactical prowess, but as 'how many chess positions could ensure from this one?'' type of solutions, then, the solutions are infinite.
So can chess be solved? If it is as a competitive sport where one side must, win, then it has already been solved. Every possible BEST move in chess has been deduced long ago.
If chess is a meaningless set of moves, with no goal in sight, then sure, chess will never be solved.
Nf3 and g3 would also be a valid solution
Optimissed wrote:
Apart from the fact I'm obviously a better debater than you?
You really ought not to ask people for academic papers. Honestly, it makes you look desperate because it's just so naïve-cliché-ten-years-ago. Next you'll be telling people you'll be looking forward to when they win their Nobel Prize.
You can't debate your way out of paper bag. Never have been able to in all my time here. That's why you have to rely on talking up your own intellect and claiming you are winning arguments, instead of actually ever doing it.
Moving on...
Optimissed wrote:
Anyway, btickler, one thing I and a lot of players who are much stronger than you agree with each other about is that we know chess is a draw, just like we know the sun will rise tomorrow, even though we can't prove that it will.
Haikauikaiikiu or whatever is similar to you. All mouth but scared to criticise the short essay you wrongly called "circular logic".
Yet another "and another thing" post from you. It's becoming a trend. Did you really just add another reply to the already replied-to post just to parrot Tygxc's previous comment and then make an oh-so-close to racist comment about another poster?
When you get these "and another thing" impulses, I would sit on them and look for a better move.
Aug 6, 2022
0
#3111
Optimissed wrote:
Called by many the best debater in the English language on Facebook [...]
It's interesting how narcissists say things like that and expect people to believe them.
Typing in CAPS makes you feel good doesn’t?
I’m sure I’m not the only one who blocked you.
Optimissed wrote:
btickler, for when you get back to me with your usual disparaging, irrelevant nonsense, and you usually wait a while so I'm offline and can't reply. Well, try to come up with something substantial. Heaven knows, asking tygxc for academic papers is asking for substantial enough things and you should know very well, it generally wouldn't be considered worth a paper on it. That's why you ask for it. Yet all there ever is from you is passive-aggression and dodgy rhetoric.
You need to think about evidence, man. That's all there is. Just endless evidence for a draw and a few "what-ifs" from weak chess players who think "maybe if there's a game for 1500 moves, it could be a win". Now, why should that be a win any more than one of 45 moves? Any reason?
Nope.
Lol, I see...so if I respond while you are offline, that is me avoiding facing you? It couldn't possibly just be that we are on different continents 8-9 hours apart?
Your distorted narrative is pretty much all you seem to have in life. You cling to it like a man dangling from a cliff.
If you cannot understand why a forced win might be longer than other wins, then you really have no business commenting on this thread. It's abundantly clear that if white can force a win, it will be arduous and hard-fought, or it would have already been discovered long ago. Surely this basic logic cannot escape even you.
Optimissed wrote:
Called by many the best debater in the English language on Facebook and I can't debate.
Lol, more narrative. Calling yourself the best debater in the English language on Facebook is like calling yourself the world's top hand model at a gardener's convention.
I knew someone like you once, he was a born-again Christian, and he claimed that he used to be "one of the top 10 D&D dungeon masters in the world" (a category there is no measure or standard for whatsoever), but then one day his bible fell off the table and landed open to "though shalt not suffer a witch to live". So, he gave it up and became the Lord's instrument...he was convinced he was chosen by God in preparation for The Rapture, which he thought imminent (this was 1989).
This type of grandiose imagination about oneself is very reminiscent of your outlook...the 1 in a million IQ claims, the certainty that you are winning arguments you have given no support/backing for, the constant "I'm the smartest one here, that's why" protestations, the dismissal of whole branches of science, the belief that you have supernatural abilities...
It's surreal and indicative of a level of denial that is beyond unhealthy.
Aug 6, 2022
0
#3116
Well, it had been nice for a couple of days, but now it's back to the same old personal bickering.
mpaetz wrote:
Well, it had been nice for a couple of days, but now it's back to the same old personal bickering.
It's not personal, it's in public. If it were personal, I would not be bothering to engage since it's not worth my time to discuss anything one on one with the likes of Optimissed.
If you don't enjoy these exchanges, might I recommend that you report the poster that started the exchange...
Optimissed wrote:
People who are incapable of winning arguments without asking tygxc to cite academic papers or without calling others "narcissistic" always make their discussions personal, when they're incapable of winning them by any other means. That's because they are not interested in fair and honest discussions but in winning and in being seen by others to be winning. They always make personal attacks on those who can out-manoeuvre them, to try to discredit them. tygxc's arguments have all been fine except for the fly in the ointment .... the belief that chess can be solved in five years. But really that's immaterial, because it doesn't affect our understanding of the more important ideas.
There's no practical problem in believing that chess may be a win and my understanding is that all it reflects is a lack of accurate judgement in a completely unimportant matter.
The more insidious thing is that this is actually a political matter because it consists of some people telling others what they may think and what they may know, because they falsely pretend to understand what knowledge is and how people attain it.
So they think they have moral authority over people's beliefs, although they pretend that what they are exercising is intellectual authority. It's an extension of the idea of agnosticism, where some people wrongly interpret it as being *incorrect* to believe that something, whatever it is, doesn't exist or does exist. They're not only telling others what they are allowed to think; they're also wrong and they're wrong because they're ignorant about how humans know things and believe things.
I tried three times to get them talking on that subject and to recognise that I wrote a short essay on the subject. In view of their refusal to address it, they have lost this argument and they have no moral authority remaining. They never had any intellectual authority, which was always a mirage.
Maybe "they" (and everybody else it seems) are not responding to your essay because it is philosophical fluff without real content in a scientific discussion.
I'll leave the rest of your delusions alone.
#3795
"Produce one paper." ++ Maybe this one
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf
Or
Black is OK! - GM Adorjan
Or "Soon all openings will be given exact scores, and if the variant is correct, it will lead to a technical endgame in which a draw will be achieved with accurate defense." - GM Sveshnikov, 65+ World Champion, MSc. Eng.
"Not a chess player" ++ A Draughts or Go player is not qualified.
"not a math hobbyist" ++ Lasker held a PhD. in mathematics.
"a Stockfish developer" ++ Unqualified: it is a chess question, not a programming issue
"Hans Berliner" ++ Tricky: Berliner believed 1 d4 wins for white and Rauzer believed 1 e4 wins for white. Those were the only two dissident voices.
#3792
"The guess "chess is a forced win for white" is just as valid as the guess "chess is a draw"."
++ And just as valid as 'chess is a forced win for black'? It is not because there are 3 mutually exclusive possibilities that they are equally valid. There is massive evidence for a draw and no evidence for a forced win either for black or white.
"I think chess is way too difficult for any human to solve, or even come close to solving."
++ Only the number of legal, sensible, reachable, and relevant positions 10^17 defines the difficulty.
"So computers will have to do most of the work."
++ No, computers do a part and human grandmasters do another part. Humans must initiate and terminate the calculations. That is also how Losing Chess and Checkers have been solved.
"Maybe chess is unsolvable."
++ Chess is finite thus solvable. How much time and effort is needed is up to discussion.
"I also think the reason tygxc thinks chess can be solved in 5 years is the same reason he thinks it's a draw." ++ Wrong. I got the 5 years from GM Sveshnikov and I was surprised. So I checked facts and figures and found he was right.
Same for chess is a draw. I got that from Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Fischer, Adorjan, Kasparov, Kramnik. So I checked the facts and found they were right.