Optimissed wrote:
...
Unless you are prepared to duplicate your arguments to be with regard to1. d4 ...Nf6 2. Qh5
you lose the argument.
...
Er, are we talking about basic rules or competition rules?
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
what even happened here
also why does every forum on this site turn into a flamewar lol
Aug 25, 2022
0
#3404
Optimissed wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
...
1. d4 ...Nf6 2. Qh5
...
Er, are we talking about basic rules or competition rules?
It doesn't matter.
I don't think 2. Qh5 is allowed under competition rules.
Aug 25, 2022
0
#3405
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Anyway, both Elroch and btickler are wrong to claim that in order to be sure that a chess position is lost, every possible line needs to be looked at.
They would be wrong if they had claimed that.
However, both of them understand that to verify a strategy for one side, it is only necessary to exhaustively analyse the moves of the other side.
In the case of your losing position, it is necessary to find a strategy for the other side and analyse every single legal defensive move against it.
Unless you are prepared to duplicate your arguments to be with regard to
1. d4 ...Nf6 2. Qh5
you lose the argument. I win either way. If you don't think it's a loss for white, you're inept. If you do, then you have to explain exactly where the demarcation lies between knowing something's a loss and not being sure.
I just won the argument, because you can't answer that.
That's not how arguments work. 2. Ba6 and 2. Qh5 have not been shown to be lost. Unless you think that you being convinced they are lost (fair enough, it's a bishop or a queen down) means that you won the argument.
Aug 25, 2022
0
#3406
It is interesting how difficult the difference between a very safe bet and something that is known for certain is to many people (including @Optimissed, apparently). Here it is of importance because it is the difference between an unproven (but strongly believed) mathematical proposition and one that has been proved, despite the probabilities being rather small (I would say).
It's worth mentioning that it does happen in mathematics that mathematicians consider a result to be so likely to be true that they act as if it were, while acknowledging that it hasn't been proven. This happens more in theoretical physics where rigour is sometimes put aside in favour of progress. 
Optimissed wrote:
You do nothing but project, even to the extent of accusing others of projection. It wouldn't alter the truth of what I say whether I can name them or not. Hundreds of people. You started this present round of bickering. You are the one who goes in cycles, a month on and a month off. It's obvious you have a problem. Chess.com should just introduce proper blocking, as on Facebook.
Still waiting. Hundreds of people...finally allowed to speak up under the protection of their erstwhile champion, the best debater on all of Facebook...
Any time, they are all going to show up...
Aug 25, 2022
0
#3408
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.
To be honest, I think it was solved. If two perfect players played, it would be a draw
If someone figures out with a supercomputer that either white or black can win with perfect play no matter what, then chess would be zero fun.
So if the latter is true, than I hope chess will never be solved.
Optimissed wrote:
You are actually completely obsessed with me. I have a wife, you know.
Keep dreaming.
@4257
"Chess is finite."
++ Yes indeed: 10^44 legal positions of which 10^17 sensible, reachable, and relevant.
"No probability there, get it?"
++ Yes, there is no probablility: each position is either a draw, a win, or a loss.
"It has NO weak or strong solution."
++ It has. An ultra-weak solution is a formal proof that chess is a draw.
A weak solution shows how black can draw against all reasonable white tries to win and needs to consider all 10^17 legal, sensible, reachable, and relevant positions.
A strong solution is a 32-men table base and requires all 10^44 legal positions.
"These are all SOLUTIONS." ++ Yes
"All possible draws." ++ Yes
"All the lines in which your opponent with absolute knowledge still doesn't have the wining line." ++ Yes
"There are many of these lines whatsoever, I mean the draw lines."
++ There are much more lines than positions because of transpositions.
"Call it a domain of SOLUTIONS if you like."
++ It are paths to hop from one drawn position to the other until the 7-men endgame table base or a prior forced 3-fold repetition.
"The rest ARE NOT SOLUTIONS because at some point one side (or both sides) make(s) mistake(s) so that the forced win(s) is/are (was/were) possible."
++ Those are pitfalls from the safe path of drawn positions into the abyss of the lost positions.
"All this said, of course, is in a sense of availability of a forced mate aside the Fide foolish rules like 50moves or such."
++ The 50-moves rule is a practical rule to ensure that a chess competition is not delayed for one game lasting weeks. However the 50-moves rule can be ignored as it is nearly never invoked in practice before the 7-men table base of strongly solved positions is reached.
ICCF allows 7-men table base win claims that exceed 50 moves without capture or pawn move, but such claims never occur.
"And what is of the most relevance for this here thread is the probability that the chess already is - SOLVED."
++ We already have part of the solution. We already have a 1000 ICCF WC drawn games that are perfectly played. Top grandmasters Carlsen, Caruana, Nepo have prepared their world championship matches for months with teams of grandmasters and cloud engines and probably have solved at least large parts of the Petrov, Sveshnikov, and Marshall.
btickler wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
Pointless convo but thats not how it works... I couldve went through and recorded every line of a certain position on a computer screen to prove its winning, it obviously doesnt mean me or any other human is capable of beating stockfish in that position.. This is going to be the case if chess eventually gets solved.
Who are you arguing with again? You are agreeing with my point.
Nah, come on. You said that one cannot be 100% sure a position is winning unless they can beat stockfish in the position.
What I'm saying is that its possible to prove that a position is winning with other means than beating stockfish or any other robot in the position.
I'm sure we agree now that I laid it out like this, but your comment wasn't in line with it.
Kotshmot wrote:
Nah, come on. You said that one cannot be 100% sure a position is winning unless they can beat stockfish in the position.
What I'm saying is that its possible to prove that a position is winning with other means than beating stockfish or any other robot in the position.
I'm sure we agree now that I laid it out like this, but your comment wasn't in line with it.
No, I agreed with Mar that it would be a start for Optimissed to make his point.
Robot is an inaccurate term here.
Aug 26, 2022
0
#3414
No one thinks about chess correctly (including myself). 'Engines' are highly flawed.
Every time the engine says I blundered or made a mistake yet won the game - I knew what was going on all along. Prove I didn't.
Aug 26, 2022
0
#3415
If I had played what the engine thought was not a mistake I would have lost.
@4280
"its possible to prove that a position is winning with other means than beating stockfish or any other robot in the position"
++ Of course there are other means to prove and even more: beating Stockfish is no proof.
I know KQ vs. K, KR vs. K, KBB vs. K, KBN vs. K, certain KNN vs. KP, certain KQ vs. KR are all won. Everybody knows, as these have been strongly solved in the 7-men endgame table base. However, many will fail to win some of the latter. So all know, but some do not know how.
I know 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6, 1 e4 Nf6 2 Qh5, 1 e4 d5 2 Qg4 win by force for black and I am confident I can win these against Carlsen or against Stockfish.
I also know for sure 1 e4 b5, 1 e4 f5, 1 d4 g5 win by force for white, but I may well fail to win those against Carlsen or Stockfish. That is the difference between ultra-weakly and weakly.
Ultra-weakly solved means knowing if a position is a draw, a win, or a loss.
Weakly solved means knowing how to draw / win that position.
Some here do not understand the difference between ultra-weakly solved and weakly solved.
Some here still do not understand that weakly solving Chess requires far less positions: 10^17 than strongly solving Chess: 10^44.
@4272
"This happens more in theoretical physics where rigour is sometimes put aside in favour of progress."
++ There is no merit in rigour.
Take the science of meteorology. They collect data from weather stations, weather balloons, satellites, radar and then use supercomputers to reliably forecast the weather of tomorrow.
Many people depend on that for air traffic, agriculture, or just to decide on clothing and whether or not to carry an umbrella.
Now consider 3 possible weather forecasts for tomorrow:
A) It will rain.
B) It will not rain.
C) There is some chance that it will rain.
Rigour is to always forecast C): it is never wrong but also completely useless for any purpose.
Aug 26, 2022
0
#3418
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Anyway, both Elroch and btickler are wrong to claim that in order to be sure that a chess position is lost, every possible line needs to be looked at.
They would be wrong if they had claimed that.
However, both of them understand that to verify a strategy for one side, it is only necessary to exhaustively analyse the moves of the other side.
In the case of your losing position, it is necessary to find a strategy for the other side and analyse every single legal defensive move against it.
Unless you are prepared to duplicate your arguments to be with regard to
1. d4 ...Nf6 2. Qh5
you lose the argument. I win either way. If you don't think it's a loss for white,
I think it's a loss for white. I also think 1. e4 e5 2. Bh6 is a loss for white. Note the word "think". It indicates a state of belief which may not be certain.
you're inept.
Phew, escaped arrogant judgement
If you do, then you have to explain exactly where the demarcation lies between knowing something's a loss and not being sure.
I have explained this several times but not well enough.
Inductive reasoning can lead to extremely high confidence that something is true, but not certainty. This is not just a claim, it is a theorem.
Treated formally, using the only consistent framework for the purpose - Bayesian probability - the posterior probability never reaches 1 with inductive reasoning from prior probabilities and evidence.
By contrast deductive reasoning deals solely with probabilities of 1 and 0 - known as True and False in boolean logic - and is able to come to the conclusion that a conclusion is True - its probability is 1.
That's just the way it is. Deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are what you use, whether you realise or not, and however imprecisely they are used. The former can reach quantifiable certainty while the latter can be proven never to reach this.
Having elaborated, I believe perhaps I have not been as explicit before about something which is not universally understood, but with which I am very familiar.
I just won the argument, because you can't answer that.
I (genuinely) hope the answer above helps. If not you, someone else.
Aug 26, 2022
0
#3419
tygxc wrote:
++ There is no merit in rigour.
Right, so you condemn those who solved checkers for their lack of merit? They were insufficiently sloppy to deserve praise?
Aug 26, 2022
0
#3420
tygxc wrote:
I know KQ vs. K, KR vs. K, KBB vs. K, KBN vs. K, certain KNN vs. KP, certain KQ vs. KR are all won. Everybody knows, as these have been strongly solved in the 7-men endgame table base.
There you go again. Same severe learning problem.
What does "the tablebase" tell you about the position after White's move 37 (shown) here?
(Game played in Tarrasch which enforces 50 move and triple repetition rules.)
and who exactly wins here?
or here under competition rules?
White to play, ply count 149
And what is "the tablebase"?
There are DTC, DTM, DTZ50 tablebases etc. that won't generally agree even on ply count 0 positions, either on the result or the moves that should be played.
Everyone who dislikes you is a crackpot. Even if they dislike you for VERY good reasons: for instance, your constant trolling and personal attacks on hundreds of members here. The signals they give off are probably dislike.
I won't post all weekend, if you can name even a dozen people I have "attacked". Just more made-up narrative.