So how do we know things?
Again, it's necessary to junk a confusing but apparently simple idea .... this time that belief is distinct from knowledge. We don't have everything neatly labelled up as belief or knowledge. It doesn't live in different parts of the brain or exist as "different stuff".
We have perceptions, which we organise into concepts and ideas. Many ideas are ready-made for us and occasionally we have our own ideas, which are capable of being passed onto others. We may believe that flying dragons, breathing fire exist and we may even habitually congregate with others who have the same belief. We may speak to each other on the subject, as if it's true. That doesn't mean we think it's true because we might be acting a part. But someone may believe s/he has strong evidence that it's true and the result is that the longer that person continues to live as if it's true, without perceiving the belief to be strongly challenged, then the more their belief is held as highly confirmed belief and ultimately, when they're completely sure, it's knowledge. The point is that from the perspective of the subject .... the person who holds the belief .... if it can't be distinguished from knowledge then to that person, it is knowledge. Hence knowledge consists of ideas that are held as true or held as unassailable facts. Those facts can be false, because knowledge is subjective.
So how do people agree between themselves that the facts they may individually hold as knowledge really are true? There are tests that can be made and perhaps there are three ways that we can agree with each other that something's true. The weakest is via shared experience. A bunch of people go outside one misty evening and they all think they see something that closely resembles a fire-breathing, flying dragon. Their pointing it out to one-another tends to confirm their conceptions, which are based on immediate perceptions. Then again, there might be another group of people, who have made an extremely exhaustive search of all zoological and historical records ever existing. They confirm their findings with physicists and biologists. These people refer to themselves as scientists and they are united in their belief that fire-breathing, flying dragons do not exist, at least on Earth. They call this knowledge.
Then, there are the theoreticians. One of them once did a short philosophy course and they have all decided that it's impossible to prove that fire-breathing, flying dragons don't exist. Therefore at first they tend to side with the dragon cultists, which we'd forgotten about for a minute. Of course, they take "knowledge" ever so seriously and reject all belief. All they are interested in is the possibility that these creatures may exist, even if they don't. Even if one can never be found. They demand proofs and they call others ignorant, if those others have settled opinions on the matter. Those others consist of both the dragon-cultists and also the scientists.
In case anyone hasn't worked it out, the scientists represent those who believe that chess is a draw. The theoreticians represent those who are disatisfied and who demand a proof which can never be found, because, of course, it's impossible to prove that fire-breathing, flying dragons do not exist on Earth.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
To cut a long story short, There are those who naively accept things and there are those who don't. Perhaps those who naively accept things consist of both the cultists and also the theoreticians in the preceding example, because the latter places "theory" on a higher pedestal than the experience and learning of true science. And yet yesterday's theory can be tomorrow's embarassment .... if only people had long enough memories!
If you're going to insult technical language as inaccurate, it's best not to pick on anything in STEM...
Insult technical language?
Oh Lordy!! That presupposes so much!
The previous page of circular logic brought to you from a guy claiming exceptional clarity...and now back to our show.
Yes, the nothing show. Bring it on.
Chess would have been solved way before this bickering ends, were it not for human mortality.
Human thickness. If it wasn't for that, mortality would matter less. It's been amazingly obvious on all these related solving chess threads.
That's an interesting take what makes you think its a forced win for white. I assume the opposite based on the fact that nearly every engine with the same programming from the starting position draws. What makes you think white would have a forced winning line. What line do you think white uses for this advantage seems like stockfish at high depth right now likes queens gambit declines but whenever i do things like depth 60 fish vs fish move for move its always a draw. Granted I'm pretty sure it has the 50 move rule built in.
Yes, and with the 50 move rule, I agree, it's probably a draw. But without it, it's likely a forced win for white.
The reason is because longer and longer forced wins are being found from what was otherwise assumed and thought to be draws. There didn't used to be such things as "white to play and win in 256 moves". But now there is. I know these forced wins are in endgames with only a few pieces, but more and more are being found. And they are longer and longer forced wins.
I think it's only a matter of time before one of these very long and complex positions can be forced from the opening position.
That's an interesting take what makes you think its a forced win for white. I assume the opposite based on the fact that nearly every engine with the same programming from the starting position draws. What makes you think white would have a forced winning line. What line do you think white uses for this advantage seems like stockfish at high depth right now likes queens gambit declines but whenever i do things like depth 60 fish vs fish move for move its always a draw. Granted I'm pretty sure it has the 50 move rule built in.
This is a recurrent question. I remember when Patriot started to argue that, She wrote that she deliberately chose a position based more on a coin toss than a conviction. I think that's code for "deliberately chose the opposing view". Later, I recall her saying that she's more and more convinced that it's true. However, I know she's an intelligent, diplomatic and probably obstinate woman. I find it hard to believe that any intelligent person believes that it's a forced win, although there is a strand of thought based on the new and wondrous idea that games that are beyond the limits of human endurance may be wins. I don't buy that either. Then again, I don't believe an intelligent person can possibly believe that chess can be solved in five years and yet ....
Maybe I'm just not very intelligent. There is always that possibility.
But when I say it's only a matter of time, I certainly don't believe it will be five years. I don't even think it will be a hundred years.
We can't even prove chess isn't a win for black. I think a lot of people in here don't understand what it means and what it requires to solve a game like chess.
#3722
"longer and longer forced wins are being found"
++ That does not mean those positions can be reached from the initial position by reasonable play. In ICCF correspondence players can claim a win that exceeds 50 moves without capture or pawn move in a 7-men endgame position. Such claims never occur. Draw claims in 7-men endgame positions occur frequently.
#3724
"We can't even prove chess isn't a win for black."
++ Here comes some strategy stealing.
If 1 e4 c5 were a win for black, then 1 c3 e5 2 c4 would be a win for white.
#3705
" for all practical purposes chess has already been solved"
++ 'weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game theoretic value against any opposition'
The strategy to achieve the draw is to follow an ICCF WC drawn game for as long as possible and when white deviates, then follow the analysis of that ICCF WC drawn game.
#3724
"We can't even prove chess isn't a win for black."
++ Here comes some strategy stealing.
If 1 e4 c5 were a win for black, then 1 c3 e5 2 c4 would be a win for white.
That doesn't work because black wouldn't play e5
And, obviously, if 1. e4 ... c5 lost for white then white wouldn't play 1. e4. Equally obviously, 1. e4 isn't lost for white. I think I should post what I wrote yesterday again.
That's an interesting take what makes you think its a forced win for white. I assume the opposite based on the fact that nearly every engine with the same programming from the starting position draws. What makes you think white would have a forced winning line. What line do you think white uses for this advantage seems like stockfish at high depth right now likes queens gambit declines but whenever i do things like depth 60 fish vs fish move for move its always a draw. Granted I'm pretty sure it has the 50 move rule built in.
This is a recurrent question. I remember when Patriot started to argue that, She wrote that she deliberately chose a position based more on a coin toss than a conviction. I think that's code for "deliberately chose the opposing view". Later, I recall her saying that she's more and more convinced that it's true. However, I know she's an intelligent, diplomatic and probably obstinate woman. I find it hard to believe that any intelligent person believes that it's a forced win, although there is a strand of thought based on the new and wondrous idea that games that are beyond the limits of human endurance may be wins. I don't buy that either. Then again, I don't believe an intelligent person can possibly believe that chess can be solved in five years and yet ....
Maybe I'm just not very intelligent. There is always that possibility.
But when I say it's only a matter of time, I certainly don't believe it will be five years. I don't even think it will be a hundred years.
As de facto trolls go, you're perfectly intelligent, as you well know. 
Truth is that, no matter how hard the question, if you flip a coin you have 50% chance of being right.
@lFPatriotGames
It could be down to personality type. Maybe you have a "something surprising is always just around the corner" reaction to the unknown.
Looked at in the sober light of true misery, however, it's been thought for a century or more that chess is innately drawn. I would suggest that any suggestion that it isn't cannot be down to knowledge, so much as personality type. All we have that's truly different is computers. There isn't any suggestion that they have or will find anything that contradicts the normal acceptance that it's drawn. If white seems to have an edge at any given time, it's easier to put it down to programming techniques that occasionally favour white, before enhanced defensive techniques catch up. So, all we really have is the idea that shuffling the pieces for a thousand moves or more may produce a win. The retort would be that that's just more of the same. Slower and subtler maybe; but the same.
It's been thought for a long time that white starts with an advantage and every subsequent pair of moves tends to even out that advantage. That seems to be amply demonstrated. Therefore it would require a surprising turn of events, to say the least, to suddenly upset that well-established trend. It would require something similar to the surprising event that is thought by many (not by me) to have kickstarted the universe, in the form of the Big Bang. That's termed a singularity ... a unique event with no obvious cause. Some believe the Big Bang account ... I don't. I don't believe that the equalisation trend in chess can be upset, either, except by an error.
That's my opinion. I've seen you be equally scathing, regarding opinions with which you disagree.
I don't particularly think my comment constituted a false and an unjustifiable insult and I stand by my judgement. I'm saying that the game theorist, whomsoever he was, was wrong. Whatever gave you the notion that I thought it was you, is for you rather than for me to know. But it's pretty clear, from your reaction, that you interpreted it as an insult to yourself. If you think it may mean that I don't consider you as intelligent as you like to portray yourself, that would be correct but it doesn't mean I don't think you're a good statistician. You just spread youself too thinly, as in the time you tried to teach me philosophy and in particular, theory of knowledge, which is my special interest within philosophy.
That doesn't mean that I'm an expert on other people's ideas regarding epistemology but then, neither are you. This subject, solving chess, is concerned with epistemology, because it's about how and why we can consider ourselves to know things.
The entire conception of "ultra-weak", being a strategic judgement on the "game theoretic value" of chess ... i.e. the result which would be achieved if both sides made no errors that would change the game result from said game theoretic value, is mistaken, unless it be assumed that such an "ultra-weak" solution cannot stand alone but must be supported by a complete analysis of chess. However, it's represented as a "strategy" which will achieve the game-theoretic result, among other things. It's all too unclear .... almost as if it were conceptualised as a means to mislead others.
Even the proposed methodology is incorrect. This idea that "only" positions rather than games need to be evaluated is completely mistaken: since every position has to be examined as if it's a game and only lines that contain clear mistakes or which lead directly to positions already assessed must be treated as games which are not to be analysed. In order to arrive at the "ultra-weak" solution, the "semi-weak" solution must be found. I prefer to term it the full, relevant solution. Or indeed, anything that gets away from the ill-thought out jargon of "weak, semi-weak and ultra-weak". There's no need to stick with bad methodology and terms which are inherently confusing should be considered "bad". Otherwise, we place no virtue on clarity. Without holding clarity as a virtue, confused thinking will always result, as you yourself demonstrate. I know you're confused, because you can't even follow my simple ideas. If you could follow them and yet still you preferred to stick with the arguably confusing jargon, it would be a different matter. But you're clearly confused and yet you insist on using concepts that don't work very well.