People used to think Deeper Blue was pretty accurate. It would lose most games to a current top engine.
This is a good point - but even on that - 'current top engine' (one of them) assigns wins to obviously drawn positions.
Stockfish.
Astutely posted by MARattigan.
But these realities are lost on those rejecting such reality.
Its similiar to flat earthism.
#3211
It is 99% sure to be a perfect game.
I calculated before
17 ICCF (grand)masters with engines, round robin, 5 days / move
136 games
126 drawn games with 0 errors: ideal games with optimal moves i.e. perfect play
9 decisive games with 1 error
1 drawn game with 2 errors
That is the only consistent way to explain the observed data.
Bear in mind that the tournament lasts about 2 years and that the 17 ICCF (grand)masters use one or more multicore engines each, so the result of 136 games represents a century of engine calculation guided by human ICCF (grand)masters.
#3193
"I just think that other explanations are more plausible, but equally not sufficient for a proof."
++ No, you cannot explain that.
AlphaZero autoplay data:
1 s/move: 88.2% draw, 7.72% white wins, 4.09% black wins (a data set of 10,000 games)
1 min/move: 97.9% draw, 1.8% white wins, 0.3% black wins (a data set of 1,000 games)
Assume for argument's sake unlimited time and unlimited engines available.
If the time per move keeps increasing, the draw rate keeps increasing too, to near 100%.
However, if the time per move keeps increasing more, it comes at some finite but huge time/move at a point where it exhausts all finite number of chess positions.
Now if chess were a white win, then the draw rate would keep getting closer and closer to 100% with increasing time per move and then suddenly plummet to 0%.
That is absurd.
This proves that chess being a white win is inconsistent with the observed data.
Likewise for the hypothesis chess being a black win.
Remains: chess is a draw.
#3205
"It was only ever an assertion in the first place, nothing more than a PRACTICAL opinion."
++ No, it was his theoretical opinion. This is not about practical chances in practical play, it is about the theoretical status of the opening.
"And he was of course right to say he hadn't exhausted it." ++ No, he said he exhausted it.
"His reasoning is the practical chess player's reasoning that if you try a tiny sample of plausible lines, you will generally get a good evaluation." ++ Sveshnikov looked at all the important lines.
"Now we understand that chess engines that examine a billion lines and AI engines that examine a million lines are strictly better" ++ Looking at unimportant lines brings nothing.
"it quite often happens that a human evaluation is wrong and the silicon evaluation is right."
++ Yes, but Carlsen and Caruana rented cloud engines during the months to prepare their world championship match. Carlsen confidently played for the Sveshnikov B33 in all games. Caruana first avoided it altogether with 3 Bb5 and then avoided the main 7 Bg5 line. So we can conclude that both Carlsen and Caruana and their teams of grandmasters and cloud engines arrived at the same conclusion as Sveshnikov in 1988: the Sveshnikov B33 draws.
"This is so often so that a top silicon player to able to defeat any human almost all the time."
++ Humans get tired, humans get distracted, humans get nervous in time trouble. ICCF grandmasters fall ill.
It is 99% sure to be a perfect game. I calculated, before, 17 ICCF (grand)masters with engines, round robin, 5 days / move, 136 games: 126 drawn games with 0 errors: ideal games with optimal moves i.e. perfect play [ . . . ]
As usual, you just repeat yourself. Objections have been made to those calculations and their basis: the assumption that the game value is a draw (I sligthly edited your post to make it shorter).
That is the only consistent way to explain the observed data.
To you.
Now if chess were a white win, then the draw rate would keep getting closer and closer to 100% with increasing time per move and then suddenly plummet to 0%. That is absurd.
To you again. The evaluations become usually more stable with depth, but how many times we see an engine change its evaluation dramatically even after a wide and deep search?
"It was only ever an assertion in the first place, nothing more than a PRACTICAL opinion."
++ No, it was his theoretical opinion. This is not about practical chances in practical play, it is about the theoretical status of the opening.
"By publishing a monograph on the 5...e5 system in 1988, I practically exhausted this variation." - Sveshnikov
"His reasoning is the practical chess player's reasoning that if you try a tiny sample of plausible lines, you will generally get a good evaluation." ++ Sveshnikov looked at all the important lines.
The idea is to find a weak solution to ascertain which are the important lines, not to use opinions about which are the important lines to get a non-mathematical solution.
#3218
"Objections have been made"
++ People make all kinds of objections. Try to find yourself an explanation: tell how many of the 127 draws, 6 white wins and 3 black wins contain how many errors under whatever of the 3 hypotheses: draw, white win, black win. It does not even have to be right, if it is plausible then it is OK. I claim you cannot get a plausible explanation aside from chess is a draw, 126 perfect games 1 draw with 2 errors, 9 decisive games with 1 error.
That is just statistics and probability.
Moreover, I can pinpoint the errors in the 9 decisive games.
"That is the only consistent way to explain the observed data.
To you." ++ If not to you, then try to explain yourself: give the numbers of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4... errors for the 136 games under whatever of the 3 hypotheses. If you claim you have an alternative consistent way, then please show it. Facts and figures, not opinion.
Now if chess were a white win, then the draw rate would keep getting closer and closer to 100% with increasing time per move and then suddenly plummet to 0%. That is absurd.
To you again. The evaluations become usually more stable with depth,
"but how many times we see an engine change its evaluation dramatically even after a wide and deep search?" ++ It is not about an evaluation number changeing, it is about the outcome of thousands of autoplay games. To me it is absurd that the number of drawn games would steadily creep to 100% and then magically drop to 0%. To you that sounds normal?
"The idea is to find a weak solution to ascertain which are the important lines, not to use opinions about which are the important lines to get a non-mathematical solution."
++ No, it is allowed to use chess knowledge in the brute force method. Especially chess knowledge in the 3 AlphaZero papers is logically derived from nothing but the Laws of Chess, axioms in your lingo, so it is unbiased knowledge that follows from the Laws of Chess, not some opinion. Sveshnikov by his own account almost weakly solved his Sveshnikov Variation B33 in 1988 alone and without engines or table bases. So much more is possible now with engines and table bases. The teams of grandmasters and engines of Carlsen and Caruana confirmed this: black confidently went for the Sveshnikov and white avoided the main line, so both tacitly agreed that their preparation had come to the same conclusion: B33 draws.
If the good lines cannot win, then the bad lines cannot win either.
It is certain that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 does not win for white, it is known that it loses. No need to calculate.
1 e4 most probably draws and 1 d4 most probably draws as well, but 1 a4 is absolutely certain not to win.
"Objections have been made"
++ People make all kinds of objections. Try to find yourself an explanation: tell how many of the 127 draws, 6 white wins and 3 black wins contain how many errors under whatever of the 3 hypotheses: draw, white win, black win. It does not even have to be right, if it is plausible then it is OK.
Already answered: post (1), post (2).
I claim you cannot get a plausible explanation aside from chess is a draw, 126 perfect games 1 draw with 2 errors, 9 decisive games with 1 error.
And I claim otherwise: post(1).
That is just statistics and probability.
Already answered: post(1), post(3).
"That is the only consistent way to explain the observed data.
To you." ++ If not to you, then try to explain yourself [ . . . ]
Already answered: post(2).
To me it is absurd that the number of drawn games would steadily creep to 100% and then magically drop to 0%. To you that sounds normal?
Already answered: post(1). No magic involved.
"The idea is to find a weak solution to ascertain which are the important lines, not to use opinions about which are the important lines to get a non-mathematical solution."
++ No, it is allowed to use chess knowledge in the brute force method. Especially chess knowledge in the 3 AlphaZero papers is logically derived [ . . . ]
Already answered: post(4), post(5), post(6), post(7).
Object the objections, instead of restating the things which raised those objections.
The "Greatest Theoretical Novelty" will solve Chess.
Besides that, Chess should always end in a Draw.
See
http://365chess.com/opening.php
I'm sure there's no first move for white where black has a forced win. Totally certain.
#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.
"By publishing a monograph on the 5...e5 system in 1988, I practically exhausted this variation."
- Sveshnikov
If Sveshnikov did that on his own in 1988 without engines or table bases,
then it is plausible to weakly solve chess in 5 years with modern computers and good assistants.
It only adds to the conjecture that he is Mr Boastalot.
#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.
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.
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.
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.
#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?
#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.
#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.
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.
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".
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.
"By publishing a monograph on the 5...e5 system in 1988, I practically exhausted this variation."
- Sveshnikov
If Sveshnikov did that on his own in 1988 without engines or table bases,
then it is plausible to weakly solve chess in 5 years with modern computers and good assistants.
We must all agree that. If the antecedent is false then the implication is true.