Back to the topic.
Chess is solved.
As I already pointed out, the solution is not dependent on humans and their algorithms, but you tend to blatantly ignore this obvious fact over and over again.
I see some talking, but not a proof of any kind.
Back to the topic.
Chess is solved.
As I already pointed out, the solution is not dependent on humans and their algorithms, but you tend to blatantly ignore this obvious fact over and over again.
I see some talking, but not a proof of any kind.
well, you are aware of your existence, it that alone doesn't prove it I don't know what else would do it for you?
Or you believe* you doesn't exist?
well, you are aware of your existence, it that alone doesn't prove it I don't know what else would do it for you?
Or you believe* you doesn't exist?
You are going to have to identify your windmill, Don Quixote. If you actually want to discuss it, that is...
This argument is going round and round. It's like trying to oversee an asylum.
The argument goes in circles because these circles are built into the original question. The only way to answer the question definitively is to come up with a foolproof evaluation method. The only 100% certain way to decide what is or is not an error would be to calculate all lines from that point in the game to the finish--either checkmate or a draw. If we possessed such a mechanism, chess would already be solved.
Yes, I agree.
Now watch some clever-clogs come and tell us we're both wrong, because we're narcissists.
Did you read mpaetz's post? You agreeing with "The only 100% certain way to decide what is or is not an error would be to calculate all lines from that point in the game to the finish" seems to contradict your claim that 2. Ba6 is 100% a loss
You're not supposed to call other people stupid here but most of the problems are caused by people like you, who are aggressive and who don't understand what they're talking about. But I can say I'm clever and that isn't penalised. There IS a narcissist here as it happens. Or two.
Pointing out a mistake in theory isn't trolling. Only people like you would pretend it is. You, on the other hand, are a real troll. Aggressive, passive-aggressive, devious, dishonest and sly. A thoroughly unpleasant person.
Maybe it's not me you're looking at...do you like Caravaggio?
I predicted the clever-clogs eh?
Correction: you produced your own result, willfully, by trolling.
Firstly, if you wish to ruin this thread for others, that's your affair.
I repeat. Pointing out an obvious mistake is hardly trolling. There have been no arguments against my criticism. Nor even any attempts at one. Anyway, most of us know you're a troll who habitually projects all criticisms back at others.
You were not pointing out any mistakes, you were taking a sideswipe at a other posters in a post that doesn't involve them. A craven tactic you use often.
Your other tactic doesn't work either. As long as your trolling behavior is worse than others, your calls for action against what you decide is trolling can only result in your behavior being curtailed first.
As for ruining the thread, my presence here is predicated on a couple of posters who *are* actually the problem. Without them, this thread would fall silent.
Why don't you go for a nice walk to calm down?
Because I'm perfectly calm...?
I know dementia isn't nice but eating fish can help.
Always the retreat to this stuff when you lose the exchange.
You do not seem calm. You seem manic and obsessive.
You would be the one tend to see this only in others, but no.
This argument is going round and round. It's like trying to oversee an asylum.
The argument goes in circles because these circles are built into the original question. The only way to answer the question definitively is to come up with a foolproof evaluation method. The only 100% certain way to decide what is or is not an error would be to calculate all lines from that point in the game to the finish--either checkmate or a draw. If we possessed such a mechanism, chess would already be solved.
Yes, I agree.
Now watch some clever-clogs come and tell us we're both wrong, because we're narcissists.
Did you read mpaetz's post? You agreeing with "The only 100% certain way to decide what is or is not an error would be to calculate all lines from that point in the game to the finish" seems to contradict your claim that 2. Ba6 is 100% a loss
No it isn't contradictory. I've clearly pointed out that there's a deductive route and an inductive route. My opinion is that the inducive route is sufficient. Yet, if someone believes that it's insufficient and they would prefer to calculate through all the possible lines, that isn't wrong at all, so I wouldn't disagree with it. If, from mpaetz's point of view, he wants to go by that route, I wouldn't disagree because he is being correct.
In my opinion, it's unnecessary because we can know that such a position is a win, with no possibility of being incorrect.
I can't see how it is that you understand there is deductive reasoning that can lead to the proof of a proposition and inductive reasoning that can lead to high confidence in a result with increasing evidence, but not realise that the latter is not the same as the former.
I did try to make the point clear by the intuitive point that in inductive reasoning what happens is a repeated cycle.
When the evidence is not complete enough to permit a deductive proof, it seems obvious that an atom of evidence cannot suddenly remove all of the uncertainty, but since all inductive reasoning can be broken down into repetition of this cycle, this would be necessary for certainty to be attainable.
Have I failed to make this meta-reasoning as crystal clear as it is to me?
This argument is going round and round. It's like trying to oversee an asylum.
The argument goes in circles because these circles are built into the original question. The only way to answer the question definitively is to come up with a foolproof evaluation method. The only 100% certain way to decide what is or is not an error would be to calculate all lines from that point in the game to the finish--either checkmate or a draw. If we possessed such a mechanism, chess would already be solved.
Yes, I agree.
Now watch some clever-clogs come and tell us we're both wrong, because we're narcissists.
Did you read mpaetz's post? You agreeing with "The only 100% certain way to decide what is or is not an error would be to calculate all lines from that point in the game to the finish" seems to contradict your claim that 2. Ba6 is 100% a loss
No it isn't contradictory. I've clearly pointed out that there's a deductive route and an inductive route. My opinion is that the inducive route is sufficient. Yet, if someone believes that it's insufficient and they would prefer to calculate through all the possible lines, that isn't wrong at all, so I wouldn't disagree with it. If, from mpaetz's point of view, he wants to go by that route, I wouldn't disagree because he is being correct.
In my opinion, it's unnecessary because we can know that such a position is a win, with no possibility of being incorrect.
It is though. It's contradictory to believe that "The only 100% certain way to decide what is or is not an error would be to calculate all lines" and to also believe that 2. Ba6 is lost with 100% certainty.
You're Ok as long as we're dealing with pure logic but as soon as the subject becomes in any way complex, you seem to struggle. I don't take you or for that matter, Typewriter seriously. Obviously btickler is totally off the scale because he can't grasp a thing.
Quite frankly, I'm not reading you. When you didn't answer my criticism of the Game Theorists, but preferred instead to call me arrogant and whatever else the other thing was, which really describes you to a T, I thought that if you aren't capable of answering my criticism, I won't read anything your write any more. I've come to the conclusion that I could take you apert in any argument that wasn't directly related to your specalism of statistics. If you can't show others sufficient respect to answer their arguments, however bad you may imagine them to be, you'd be better off taking your lap-dog btickler for a walk.
All the posters you listed (and many others in this thread as well) are beyond your ability to have a meaningful discussion with. Your world is one of pseudo-science, belief in the paranormal, and an inability to see past your own nose.
Let's calmly look at this...
You didn't like programming, so you bailed and went into philosophy. Yet, you largely disagree with what you were taught in philosophy (based on your past critiques of various philosophers). You make statements about software and systems development, lacking any real expertise in it. You took a course in Thermodynamics, and dismissed the entire science from the introductory class. You downplay Einstein, Hawking, at al. You don't think the Big Bang has any merit. You don't think Covid is any more than a flu, and you eschew getting vaccinated. You apparently think Russia is on the right side of the war in Ukraine. Whatever contrary position there is to take, you are there, with bells on.
You work(ed) in knack-knack stores (books and music, etc.) and various odd jobs, but you are the world's foremost expert in every subject you deign to discuss. You and your progeny are the only people that understand anything, all authority and experts are wrong and you can glean this by merely skimming through their publications. You married an heiress in Canada, later broke up, and married a psychiatrist. Your partners are pretty likely to have carried most of the financial load during your life, unless you are a trust fund baby, which would certainly explain a lot 
.
I could probably scrounge up more with a little effort, but that's off the top of my head. It (meaning you, over the years) paints a pretty clear picture of where your insecurities and biases come from for anyone with the most basic powers of observation.
I don't think you have a leg to stand on in any of your diatribes, but unlike you, I am not going to claim that everyone agrees with me. The evidence speaks for itself. What you sow is what you are constantly reaping, and it has been this way the whole time you have been here. The definition of insanity...(and this follow up I did have to scrounge up for the exact quote of what you said):
"I know you have lost all patience with me. I suppose you don't like the combination of accuracy, honesty, scepticism and high intelligence.
But I used to be able to see through solid objects. I'm not even joking. I probably could do it still. I can make people better by thinking. A long while ago I was shown a series of paranormal abilities, one after the other. Each one I repressed one after the other. That was instinctive. The final one was to see the truth.
That's why a lot of people find fault with me and ignore me."
No, that is not why people find fault with you and ignore you. But it's a step in the right direction that you know how people react to you, at least. That girlfriend that "helped you discover" your "paranormal" abilities really did you a lifelong disservice. She preyed on an insecurity, and turned it into a decades long delusion/issue.
Someone once asked me why I don't just let your suffer your delusions, since you are 70+ and will not change anyway. The answer is that doing so would be unkind to you (I consider placating the elderly to be "kinder" to those who engage in it than to the recipient of it), but also because your delusions do damage to others around you, and they don't deserve that either.
@4559
"The only 100% certain way to decide what is or is not an error would be to calculate all lines from that point in the game to the finish--either checkmate or a draw."
++ Yes, but not all lines are needed, only the reasonable lines.
"If we possessed such a mechanism, chess would already be solved."
++ No, we possess such a mechanism:
3 cloud engines or 3000 desktops during 5 years under supervision of 3 (ICCF) (grand)masters.
@4587
"It's contradictory to believe that "The only 100% certain way to decide what is or is not an error would be to calculate all lines" and to also believe that 2. Ba6 is lost with 100% certainty."
++ That is right. We know with 100% certainty that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6, 1 e4 Nf6 2 Qh5, 1 e4 d5 2 Qg4 lose by force for white. Thus it is not necessary to calculate all lines.
@4501
"If chess is a forced win for white, it would require an errorless game.
An errorless game has not happened in your sample of 136 games."
++ There are 3 possibilities: chess is a draw, a white win, or a black win.
Observed: 133 games = 127 draws + 6 white wins + 3 black wins.
Assuming chess a white or black win no Poisson distribution of the errors / game fits.
Thus chess is no white or black win.
Assuming chess is a draw, a Poisson distribution with mean value 0.070984 error / game fits.
The 127 draws are 99.74868% sure to be errorless.
The 9 decisive games are 99.9148% sure to contain exactly 1 error.
We can even pinpoint the 1 error: it is usually the last move.
Poisson distribution doesn't work here, because if chess happened to be a forced win for white, likelihood for the first error would be bigger than for the second error. You cannot predict the amount of errors because each error has a different probability. This is because to avoid an error there are x amount of available lines that maintain current evaluation and the x varies from position to position. We cannot know the probability for the errors and we cannot make predictions for errors.
@4591
"Poisson distribution doesn't work here" ++ How do you know?
"because if chess happened to be a forced win for white,
likelihood for the first error would be bigger than for the second error."
++ If you refine the distribution, then the result might slightly change, but not drastically.
"You cannot predict the amount of errors because each error has a different probability."
++ If probabilities of errors slightly differ, then the result will slightly differ, but not drastically.
"to avoid an error there are x amount of available lines that maintain current evaluation and the x varies from position to position." ++ That is right, but I look at the big picture, at 136 or 210 games with each like 50 moves or 100 positions.
"We cannot know the probability for the errors and we cannot make predictions for errors."
++ Yes, we can. That is the fundament of statistics.
Making comparisons is always tricky, but I try one.
Say you want to answer the question:
'How low can I make a door so all humans can pass under it upright?'
Now you cannot measure all 8 billion people.
The usual way is to measure a sufficient number of people, calculate the average and the standard deviation, then use the Gaussian distribution to calculate how high the door must be so all 8 billion can pass under it.
Now you retort: 'Gaussian distribution does not work.'
Men are generally taller than women so it is a bimodal distribution.
Adults are taller than children, so it is a skewed distribution.
In some countries people tend to be taller than in other countries.
Basketball players tend to be taller than marathon runners.
We cannot decide how high the door must be.
@4591
"Poisson distribution doesn't work here" ++ How do you know?
"because if chess happened to be a forced win for white,
likelihood for the first error would be bigger than for the second error."
++ If you refine the distribution, then the result might slightly change, but not drastically.
"You cannot predict the amount of errors because each error has a different probability."
++ If probabilities of errors slightly differ, then the result will slightly differ, but not drastically.
"to avoid an error there are x amount of available lines that maintain current evaluation and the x varies from position to position." ++ That is right, but I look at the big picture, at 136 or 210 games with each like 50 moves or 100 positions.
"We cannot know the probability for the errors and we cannot make predictions for errors."
++ Yes, we can. That is the fundament of statistics.
Making comparisons is always tricky, but I try one.
Say you want to answer the question:
'How low can I make a door so all humans can pass under it upright?'
Now you cannot measure all 8 billion people.
The usual way is to measure a sufficient number of people, calculate the average and the standard deviation, then use the Gaussian distribution to calculate how high the door must be so all 8 billion can pass under it.
Now you retort: 'Gaussian distribution does not work.'
Men are generally taller than women so it is a bimodal distribution.
Adults are taller than children, so it is a skewed distribution.
In some countries people tend to be taller than in other countries.
Basketball players tend to be taller than marathon runners.
We cannot decide how high the door must be.
The comparison highlights the problem we're having. Humans could vary from say 5ft to 8ft. We have good data on how much they vary to make predictions.
Again in chess there are always x amount of lines that maintain current evaluation and avoid an error. Say that with best play there are 2 available lines that force a win for white. Once an error happens and evaluation changes from a win to a draw, there are now 19 available lines to force a draw with best play.
We don't have accurate data on how much "x" varies to make any predictions on errors per game. We could have 136 games where the first error occured in 100% of the games and the second occured in 15% of the games. There is no way to reliably make predictions
Back to the topic.
Chess is solved.
As I already pointed out, the solution is not dependent on humans and their algorithms, but you tend to blatantly ignore this obvious fact over and over again.