Chess will never be solved, here's why - Chess Forums - Page 159

TheChessIntellectReturns · 2022-01-16T22:50:19-08:00

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 coul

tygxc

Jun 3, 2022

0

#3161

#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.

Optimissed

Jun 3, 2022

0

#3162

haiaku wrote:

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.

Hi, half the time, we seem to be arguing about practical or pragmatic ideas that are based on evidence only and the other half, about non-evidence-based ideas. The problem with a "mathematical proof" or a "deductive proof" is that they have to be based on incontrovertible propositions. That seems to be entirely impossible, however, for reasons that have been gone into fairly thoroughly and which are accepted by everyone other than tygxc EXCEPT that he may really be prioritising, in hs mind, pragmatic ideas, which I also do because evidence based ideas are all we have and they lead us to be fairly sure that:
(1) Chess is drawn with "best play" or with "no mistakes", as playerafar suggests, since we can retrospectively define "no mistakes" as "any play which changes the balance of play, leading to a worse result than was previously obtainable" .... or something like that.
(2) Chess won't be solved in five years because we haven't the tools to achieve it. If anything, that's the firmer proposition of the two and number (1) seems 100%.

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.

haiaku

Jun 3, 2022

0

#3163

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.

Optimissed

Jun 3, 2022

0

#3164

tygxc wrote:

#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.

Why do you assume that? In any case, the chess credentials just mean he's good at a particular game. I was a top class table football player so doesn't that mean my arguments about solving chess are always right?

tygxc

Jun 3, 2022

0

#3165

#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

Jun 3, 2022

0

#3166

tygxc wrote:

#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.

This constant desire to depict generalities by referring to specifics is dodging. You seem to be saying there are no ground to dismiss Sir Boastalot's empty claims. What nonsense! About 20 people have provided various arguments. They're right and you are not, on this occasion.

Optimissed

Jun 3, 2022

0

#3167

And you haven't a leg to stand on. Your arguments are about as strong and to the point as btickler's, regarding whatever ideology he happens to be arguing for at any given time. You also base your beliefs (which is what they are in both cases) on ideology and not on evidence or logical argument.

haiaku

Jun 3, 2022

0

#3168

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".

Optimissed

Jun 3, 2022

0

#3169

haiaku wrote:

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? Hello yes, we do 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? If it's impossible to force a win, then they draw because a draw is better than a loss. 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. Better players play more planned strategies and make less tactical errors, which means less random.

The main point is that @tygxc claims that the assumption of the game-theoretic value as a draw makes 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". It's complete nonsense, without algorithms that can recognise drawing positions. He assumes we (Stockfish) have those already but it can't be true. Otherwise, Stockfish would never lose. Quite honestly, I don't understand why people continue to argue. The point has been made and won and no amount of denial will change that.

Optimissed

Jun 3, 2022

0

#3170

The thing is really that chess is a game, meant to be enjoyed. It isn't a sport, where people want to achieve the best result at the expense of enjoyment. That's the first bit of bad thinking that leads people down the wrong path. You don't enjoy chess by learning the safest drawing line against all openings.

So white has an initiative from the start and very often, black wants to play to win, from the start. And mistakes are made and black loses. Nothing forced about losing. It's just that every person who has argued that chess is a win for one side or the other hasn't seriously and accurately thought about it. They don't understand or haven't thought about the psychology.

haiaku

Jun 3, 2022

0

#3171

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

Jun 3, 2022

0

#3172

haiaku wrote:

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.

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.

DiogenesDue

Jun 3, 2022

0

#3173

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.

haiaku

Jun 3, 2022

0

#3174

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?

tygxc

Jun 3, 2022

0

#3175

#2329
"About 20 people have provided various arguments."
1 Sveshnikov > 20 weak players

tygxc

Jun 3, 2022

0

#3176

#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.

XOXOXOexpert

Jun 4, 2022

0

#3177

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

playerafar

Jun 4, 2022

0

#3178

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'.

XOXOXOexpert

Jun 4, 2022

0

#3179

ty

haiaku

Jun 4, 2022

0

#3180

@tygxc, how much money the project would require?