"white wins more-doesn't mean he has a forced win"
Yes it does.
Since humans will never be playing a perfect game, does this really matter?
Nope. Not in the least.
Which is why for all practical purposes, I think chess has already been solved.
"white wins more-doesn't mean he has a forced win"
Yes it does.
It means that you suspect there may be a forced win.
In reality, the slight excess of white wins over black ones can be adequately explained by other means and therefore there's no need to believe that white has a forced win.
I agree. And there is also no need to believe that chess is a forced draw.
But, at the highest level, which humans will never achieve, it's one or the other. It's either a forced win for one side, or, a forced draw. So I choose forced win for white. Because of the reasons already mentioned.
"white wins more-doesn't mean he has a forced win"
Yes it does.
It means that you suspect there may be a forced win.
In reality, the slight excess of white wins over black ones can be adequately explained by other means and therefore there's no need to believe that white has a forced win.
I agree. And there is also no need to believe that chess is a forced draw.
But, at the highest level, which humans will never achieve, it's one or the other. It's either a forced win for one side, or, a forced draw. So I choose forced win for white. Because of the reasons already mentioned.
What do you mean you choose forced win for white? You mean thats your guess? Why do you wanna make a guess based on very unconvincing or nonexistent reasoning, isn't it just reasonable to say we don't know until chess is solved. This convo is confusing me.
"white wins more-doesn't mean he has a forced win"
Yes it does.
It means that you suspect there may be a forced win.
In reality, the slight excess of white wins over black ones can be adequately explained by other means and therefore there's no need to believe that white has a forced win.
I agree. And there is also no need to believe that chess is a forced draw.
But, at the highest level, which humans will never achieve, it's one or the other. It's either a forced win for one side, or, a forced draw. So I choose forced win for white. Because of the reasons already mentioned.
What do you mean you choose forced win for white? You mean thats your guess? Why do you wanna make a guess based on very unconvincing or nonexistent reasoning, isn't it just reasonable to say we don't know until chess is solved. This convo is confusing me.
Yes. It's reasonable to say you don't know. It's reasonable to say it's a forced draw. And it's reasonable to say it's a forced win for white. They are all perfectly reasonable. But since at a level we as humans will never achieve it's one or the other, I choose forced win for white.
#3556
Induction would be: I have looked at a data base of 4 million games and found that 1 e4 and 1 d4 offer better chances of winning.
Induction is also what AlphaZero did: I have played 700,000 games against myself and I conclude that 1 e4 and 1 d4 offer better chances of winning.
What Capablanca did was deduction.
That is the meaning of his 'theoretically' as opposed to 'in practice'
Laws of Chess -> Q, B, N are more active in the center -> it is important to secure central squares for Q, B, N
Laws of Chess -> to make a bishop exert its power a pawn must move -> e/g & d/b pawns
Laws of Chess -> king security is important -> g & b pawns not as good as e & d pawns
Laws of Chess -> e4 & d4 secure more central squares for knights than e3 & d3
altogether e4 & d4 are the best first moves.
The laws of chess neither say that controlling the center or having the most active pieces is best, nor do they mention either as a win condition. In fact in some cases a move that gives more control of the center can be worse than one that does not.
For instance in this position Nh6 is better than Nf6 even though it involves putting the knight on the edge of the board while Nf6 attacks the center as Nf6 hangs mate in 1 while Nh6 defends against the mate in 1 threat. So simply showing that a given move gives more control of the center or leads to more active pieces than another move isn't the same as proving that it's objectively better.
"white wins more-doesn't mean he has a forced win"
Yes it does.
It means that you suspect there may be a forced win.
In reality, the slight excess of white wins over black ones can be adequately explained by other means and therefore there's no need to believe that white has a forced win.
I agree. And there is also no need to believe that chess is a forced draw.
But, at the highest level, which humans will never achieve, it's one or the other. It's either a forced win for one side, or, a forced draw. So I choose forced win for white. Because of the reasons already mentioned.
That's all very well, if you treat choosing one or the other as a game, which you seem to do ... and there's nothing wrong with it or with the fact that you're mistaken. Whether or not you know it, you're having fun .... being provocative. Again, nothing wrong with it.
But, at the highest level, which humans will never achieve, it's one or the other. It's either a forced win for one side, or, a forced draw. So I choose forced win for white. Because of the reasons already mentioned.
But one doesn't have to choose ...
Will it rain 12 days from now in one's neighborhood?
Unknown - might have to wait till until its close enough for a good weather report.
But even there - the weather reports can be wrong.
We don't know if it'll rain on all the Thursdays for the rest of this year.
Or not.
Must we choose now for all the future Thursdays?
Its to be all or none and we will do so by 'personal experience'?
#3559
"So chess being a forced win for white, is that an induction or deduction? Or could it be reduction or conduction?"
Chess is a draw.
That is by induction, deduction, as well as reduction.
Induction from millions of grandmaster, correspondence, and engine games.
Deduction:
White is +1 tempo up
3 tempi = 1 pawn
+1 pawn wins
+1 tempo is not enough to win
chess is a draw
Reduction:
Assume chess were a forced win
1 tempo would thus be enough to win
2 tempi thus would certainly win
black can afford to lose another tempo:
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1768345
Chess is not a forced win
Chess is a draw
#3582
"In fact in some cases a move that gives more control of the center can be worse than one that does not."
++ There is a hierarchy: king safety > material > position
"5.1.1
The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7." This takes precedence over all the rest
"3.7.5.1
When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position, he must exchange that pawn as part of the same move for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour on the intended square of arrival. This is called the square of ‘promotion’." This leads to an advantage of +1 pawn enough to win.
Rules 3.2, 3.4, 3.6 lead to importance of the center
#3589
"I was thinking of A quantum computer"
++ A quantum computer is not even needed.
Per GM Sveshnikov conventional computers can do it in 5 years.
#3582
"In fact in some cases a move that gives more control of the center can be worse than one that does not."
++ There is a hierarchy: king safety > material > position
"5.1.1
The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7." This takes precedence over all the rest
"3.7.5.1
When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position, he must exchange that pawn as part of the same move for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour on the intended square of arrival. This is called the square of ‘promotion’." This leads to an advantage of +1 pawn enough to win.
Rules 3.2, 3.4, 3.6 lead to importance of the center
The rules you mentioned just imply that queens, bishops, and knights control the most squares when in the center, and have the most legal moves, but that is not the same as proving that any given move that gives more control of the center is objectively better than one that gives less control of the center. Having more legal moves just means that a move that has more control of the center looks better than one that has less, as far as you can calculate, but that doesn't mean that it is objectively better. In chess moves that look bad can sometimes turn out to be the best moves, meaning that in order to solve chess we would need to look at any moves that we don't know to hang mate regardless of how bad those moves may look.
#3590
A queen, bishop, or knight in the center controls more squares and thus offers more possibilities for attack on the enemy king and defence of the own king.
If all the rest is the same: immediate king safety, material, then the centralised position is better.
That is why 1 a4 cannot be better than 1 e4 or 1 d4 and thus can be disregarded in solving chess.
Has chess been solved? No
Can chess be solved? Yes, it takes 5 years on cloud engines.
Will chess be solved? Maybe, it depends on somebody paying 5 million $ for the cloud engines and the human assistants during 5 years.
Have humans walked on Mars? No
Can humans walk on Mars? Yes
Will humans walk on Mars? Maybe, it depends on somebody paying billions of $ to build and launch a spacecraft.
check my forum
btw i didn't copy i posted mine earlier that this one
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-100-analyzed-why/
also the person who made this forum is closed
and notice his comment has -18 votes
sad XD
#3590
A queen, bishop, or knight in the center controls more squares and thus offers more possibilities for attack on the enemy king and defence of the own king.
If all the rest is the same: immediate king safety, material, then the centralised position is better.
That is why 1 a4 cannot be better than 1 e4 or 1 d4 and thus can be disregarded in solving chess.
So in other words there are more ways for the game to end with you checkmating your opponent and fewer ways for your opponent to checkmate you if you control the center. Having more ways to win, and fewer ways to lose isn't what determines if a move is objectively better when it comes to solving chess, as all that matters is the end result assuming perfect play, and the number of moves to forced mate if there is one. In order for the argument that when all else is equal control of the center is always better to be used for solving chess there needs to be a formal proof, both that control of the center always leads to a better or equal outcome with all else being equal assuming perfect play from both players, and that all else really is either equal with regard to two different moves.
#3596
"there are more ways for the game to end with you checkmating your opponent and fewer ways for your opponent to checkmate you if you control the center"
++ Yes and also the opponent will be forced to make unfavorable trades
"there needs to be a formal proof, both that control of the center always leads to a better or equal outcome" ++ This is well established and all grandmasters and theoreticians of centuries said so. How formal do you want it? The AlphaZero paper only confirms it, and it was fed with nothing but the Laws of Chess, no other human input.
So chess being a forced win for white, is that an induction or deduction? Or could it be reduction or conduction?
Its a non sequitur. A false conclusion. A misconception.
Disinformation and misinformation.
One might think that the internet would make disinformation more unlikely by educating and informing people.
But there's been a remarkable paradox instead.
The internet is being used to push and enhance and develop Disinfo and Misinfo. And evil influences.
Including but not limited to - theocracy - Covid disinformation - flat earth doctrine - and many other negatives.
Disinformation about computer projects in chess is a special case of that here - coming from just one person here. (not named)
Maybe it's not so much disinformation, or even misinformation. Maybe it's just personal experience. which is neither of those.
It's really difficult to persuade someone that their personal experiences are "wrong". I think there is nothing more convincing than results.
Yeh but yeah but yeh but .... er .... my nerves are failing me but dare I ask? What is your personal experience of chess being a forced win??
I win more with white. I also have seen, firsthand, results that show white, overall, (not just me) wins more. Also white has an advantage, which will eventually be used to force a win in any game. But that's a long way off, in my opinion.
So until someone can show a win every time (with either color) or someone show a draw every time, I'll stick with my personal experiences.
I hope you won't mind my mentioning it but to be correct, your sentence "Also white has an advantage, which will eventually be used to force a win in any game" should read "Also white has an advantage, which MAY eventually be used to force a win in any game"
And that would be your opinion, which would not coincide with mine, but at least it would seem less outlandish. I felt a bit strange, writing that and realising that I also enjoy being provocative.
I'm employing dual standards. Redacted.