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...
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.
#3812
"Called by many the best debater in the English language on Facebook"
++ They should have an elo rating for that.
#3794
"Then prove it."
++ See the last completed ICCF World Championship: 50 days per 10 moves, engines allowed
June 20, 2019 to June 1, 2022, 17 players round robin
https://iccf.com/event?id=79897
136 games, 121 draw, 15 decisive games.
If chess is a draw then that means:
119 drawn games with 0 error
15 decisive games with 1 error, usually the last move
2 drawn games with 2 errors
If chess were a white win or a black win, then there is no way to explain this.
#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.
Maybe try to produce a paper that is actually about solving chess or proving chess is a forced draw...
"Assessing Game Balance with AlphaZero: Exploring Alternative Rule Sets in Chess"
...is not such a paper. But for what it does say, you might also note that it does not agree with your position:
"It is widely hypothesized that classical chess is theoretically drawn"
So...your offered paper agrees with my position, not yours.
Finally, chess players (with no other applicable qualifications) are not qualified to make a judgment on this topic. Never have been, in the entire history of the game. Any more than a race car driver can design their own racecar without another set of skills to apply. Regardless, none of the people listed have made the ridiculous claims you are making here. Not even Sveshnikov, whose statement was an off the cuff boast to entertain an audience and stopped well short of trying to dismiss 30+ orders of magnitude as you have done.
#3812
"Called by many the best debater in the English language on Facebook"
++ They should have an elo rating for that.
If there were, you'd have to start Facebook users at 600-800 rating.
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
I would go further to say I believe all white's first moves are draw. With more or less difficulties.
#3831
"It is widely hypothesized that classical chess is theoretically drawn"
++ That is the cautionous way to say "Chess is a draw" like Fischer said.
"So...your offered paper agrees with my position, not yours."
++ The paper goes on to show 88.2% draws at 1 s/move and 97.9% draws at 1 min/move and that same trend even persists if stalemate is made a win. See Figure 2.
"chess players (with no other applicable qualifications) are not qualified to make a judgment"
++ Chess players are more qualified than Draughts or Go players to judge Chess.
They have other qualifications: Sveshnikov a MSc. Eng, Lasker a PhD Math.
"a race car driver can design their own racecar without another set of skills to apply"
++ It is not about designing a car, it is about driving a car already designed and built.
Solving chess is not about developing software, it is about using an already developed software like Stockfish on already existing hardware like cloud engines.
"none of the people listed have made the ridiculous claims you are making here."
++ all of them made such claims and none are ridiculous except in your eyes
"Not even Sveshnikov, whose statement was an off the cuff boast to entertain an audience"
++ He said so to Eldar Mukhametov in an interview on 25 June 2007.
"and stopped well short of trying to dismiss 30+ orders of magnitude as you have done."
++ I do not dismiss 30+ orders of maginitude.
Per Gourion there are 10^37 positions without promotions to pieces not previously captured.
Of a sampled set of 1000 none are sensible: can arise from a game with > 50% accuracy.
Tromp conjectured only 1 in 10^6 is sensible in that way.
I multiply by 10 to also accept positions with 3 or 4 queens.
That leaves 10^32 sensible positions.
Weakly solving a game requires less positions than strongly solving.
During solving each pawn move or capture renders huge numbers of positions unreachable.
Watkins has weakly solved Losing Chess to a win visiting only 10^9 positions.
Schaeffer has weakly solved Checkers to a draw visiting 10^14 of the 500,995,484,682,338,672,639 positions, i.e. 500,995,484,682,338,672,639^0.676
By analogy (10^32)^0.676 = 10^21
Weakly solving requires a strategy, i.e. 1 strategy.
If 1 e4 e5 is proven a draw, then it is not relevant if 1 e4 c5 draws as well or not.
That gives a further reduction to 10^17 relevant positions.
10^17 positions on a cloud engine of 10^9 positions / second gives 10^8 seconds
10^8 seconds = 10^8 s / 3600 s/h / 24 h/d / 365.25 d/a = 3 years.
The plan is not 1 but 3 engines: 1 for 1 e4, 1 for 1 d4 and 1 for other that do not transpose.
So 5 years should suffice indeed.
"Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess." - GM Sveshnikov (+).
He was right...
#3833
"I would go further to say I believe all white's first moves are draw. With more or less difficulties."
++ That is probably right, though 1 a4 or 1 g4 might lose.
For black it is more difficult: not all 20 possible replies to all 20 possible first white moves draw.
#3833
"I would go further to say I believe all white's first moves are draw. With more or less difficulties."
++ That is probably right, though 1 a4 or 1 g4 might lose.
For black it is more difficult: not all 20 possible replies to all 20 possible first white moves draw.
I have the same opinion
Hey man I'm just trying to enjoy the game. This is like asking the meaning of life. Just live with it.
#3831
"It is widely hypothesized that classical chess is theoretically drawn"
++ That is the cautionous way to say "Chess is a draw" like Fischer said.
Nope. It's a way of saying "I don't have the evidence or even the conviction needed to make a definitive statement".
"So...your offered paper agrees with my position, not yours."
++ The paper goes on to show 88.2% draws at 1 s/move and 97.9% draws at 1 min/move and that same trend even persists if stalemate is made a win. See Figure 2.
Lol. That figure is meaningless, as it is completely relative to the various engines' levels of play. You cannot prove chess is a draw by citing imperfect engine play or analysis.
"chess players (with no other applicable qualifications) are not qualified to make a judgment"
++ Chess players are more qualified than Draughts or Go players to judge Chess.
A ridiculous argument that does nothing to refute my point.
They have other qualifications: Sveshnikov a MSc. Eng, Lasker a PhD Math.
Neither has written any kind of attempted proof. So these accolades remain just that.
"a race car driver can design their own racecar without another set of skills to apply"
++ It is not about designing a car, it is about driving a car already designed and built.
Solving chess is not about developing software, it is about using an already developed software like Stockfish on already existing hardware like cloud engines.
No. It isn't. Solving chess cannot be achieved using Stockfish. Not now, not 5 years from now. Not 500 years from now.
"none of the people listed have made the ridiculous claims you are making here."
++ all of them made such claims and none are ridiculous except in your eyes
Not one of them. They would not even say that chess is a forced draw without hedging their statements, never mind how to get to that conclusion.
"Not even Sveshnikov, whose statement was an off the cuff boast to entertain an audience"
++ He said so to Eldar Mukhametov in an interview on 25 June 2007.
So you agree with me then, he was pandering to an audience.
"and stopped well short of trying to dismiss 30+ orders of magnitude as you have done."
++ I do not dismiss 30+ orders of maginitude.
Per Gourion there are 10^37 positions without promotions to pieces not previously captured.
Of a sampled set of 1000 none are sensible: can arise from a game with > 50% accuracy.
Tromp conjectured only 1 in 10^6 is sensible in that way.
I multiply by 10 to also accept positions with 3 or 4 queens.
That leaves 10^32 sensible positions.
Your "50% accuracy" is a number that has no meaning in terms of solving chess or determining perfect play. So all the premises you build using it are a waste of time. That number is 50% accuracy only of current engine evaluations. Those evaluations change in a matter of weeks and sometimes days, with each new release. Your whole argument is like a house of cards.
Weakly solving a game requires less positions than strongly solving.
During solving each pawn move or capture renders huge numbers of positions unreachable.
Watkins has weakly solved Losing Chess to a win visiting only 10^9 positions.
Schaeffer has weakly solved Checkers to a draw visiting 10^14 of the 500,995,484,682,338,672,639 positions, i.e. 500,995,484,682,338,672,639^0.676
By analogy (10^32)^0.676 = 10^21
Weakly solving requires a strategy, i.e. 1 strategy.
If 1 e4 e5 is proven a draw, then it is not relevant if 1 e4 c5 draws as well or not.
That gives a further reduction to 10^17 relevant positions.
10^17 positions on a cloud engine of 10^9 positions / second gives 10^8 seconds
10^8 seconds = 10^8 s / 3600 s/h / 24 h/d / 365.25 d/a = 3 years.
The plan is not 1 but 3 engines: 1 for 1 e4, 1 for 1 d4 and 1 for other that do not transpose.
So 5 years should suffice indeed.
"Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess." - GM Sveshnikov (+).
He was right...
These arguments are no better now than the several dozen times you have already made them in this thread and other threads. Your only saving grace is that nobody is going to put up the money, so you will continue to have an excuse for there being no solution for an indefinite time period.
Hey man I'm just trying to enjoy the game. This is like asking the meaning of life. Just live with it.
The meaning of life is a known thing. It's bad to live with it without knowing it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DO NOT USE GIANT FONTS. YOUR OPINION SHOULD MAKE ITS OWN STATEMENT.
Goos one 🤣🤣🤣
we are witnesses of a slack jaw dimness here
🤣🤣🤣
#3838
"That figure is meaningless, as it is completely relative to the various engines' levels of play."
++ More time = higher level = more draws
"chess players (with no other applicable qualifications) are not qualified to make a judgment"
++ That is a ridiculous argument with no point at all. Should we ask a hockey player then?
"Neither has written any kind of attempted proof." ++ But they expressed their expert opinions.
"Solving chess cannot be achieved using Stockfish. Not now, not 5 years from now. Not 500 years from now." ++ That is your misguided opinion, without anything to back it up.
"Not one of them. They would not even say that chess is a forced draw without hedging their statements, never mind how to get to that conclusion." ++ They did say that.
"So you agree with me then, he was pandering to an audience."
++ He was giving an interview to leave a legacy, as he was terminally ill with cancer.
"Your "50% accuracy" is a number that has no meaning in terms of solving chess."
++ You misunderstand. 50% accuracy is an arbitrary threshold to distinguish the few sensible positions from many non-sensible positions. If a position results from a game with 99% or 100% accuracy, then that does not mean the position results from perfect play. If a position results from a game with 49% accuracy, then that means the position does not result from perfect play.
"Those evaluations change in a matter of weeks and sometimes days, with each new release."
++ Yes, but that does not matter. 99% today may be 100% or 96% tomorrow, and 49% today may be 42% or 62% tomorrow, but never 100% or 99%.
Besides the > 50% criterium is only used to define sensible positions to estimate the time needed to weakly solve chess, not in the actual solving.
"These arguments are no better now" ++ Those are solid arguments based on facts and figures, unlike your own ridiculous 'million years' based on erroneous toilet paper scribbling.
"nobody is going to put up the money" ++ Maybe. Humans have walked on the Moon. Unmanned vehicles have driven on Mars. Humans can walk on Mars. The only limit is money.
In your sense, @Optimissed, people "know" many things that are false. "Knowing" is a subjective state of mind.
Apparently, you and @tygxc now "know" that chess is a draw. In your case this is inconsistent with your earlier position, but there is no necessity for this type of knowing to be consistent.
Quote from a book on philosophy I happen to be reading:
<<How do you know that you know the stuff you think you know? Take away the option of answering, “I just do!” and what’s left is epistemology.>>
That doesn't mean that every belief that is based on something (rather than nothing) is certain. It is extremely common for people not to recognise that their basis for a belief means it is uncertain.
#3846
"you and I are agreed that there's no likelihood of a full solution for chess coming soon."
++ On no basis at all. I agree with Sveshnikov it can be done in 5 years.
"That means that if we wish to try to answer the question of whether chess is a draw, we have no deductive argument to fall back upon: nor any likelihood of there ever being one."
++ There are deductive arguments. White is 1 tempo up. 3 tempi equals 1 pawn. It needs 1 pawn to win. 1 tempo is not enough to win.
Well, it had been nice for a couple of days, but now it's back to the same old personal bickering.