btickler wrote:
stancco wrote:
Goos one 🤣🤣🤣
we are witnesses of a slack jaw dimness here
🤣🤣🤣
Did you know that your username means "tired out" in Italian?
Yes, I'm aware of that, I mean tired.
I'm just across Italian coast 👋
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
stancco wrote:
btickler wrote:
stancco wrote:
Goos one 🤣🤣🤣
we are witnesses of a slack jaw dimness here
🤣🤣🤣
Did you know that your username means "tired out" in Italian?
Yes, I'm aware of that, I mean tired.
I'm just across Italian coast 👋
Whereabouts are you?
Optimissed wrote:
stancco wrote:
btickler wrote:
stancco wrote:
Goos one 🤣🤣🤣
we are witnesses of a slack jaw dimness here
🤣🤣🤣
Did you know that your username means "tired out" in Italian?
Yes, I'm aware of that, I mean tired.
I'm just across Italian coast 👋
Whereabouts are you?
Split, Croatia
Io sono Stanco, to not be confused, I mean my name is Stanko.
stancco wrote:
Split, Croatia
Io sono Stanco, to not be confused, I mean my name is Stanko.
Piacere. Perhaps hold off on assumptions of dimwittedness. I know it might be difficult with the example behavior displayed by some.
Elroch wrote:
Even if every one of a billion games between the top players were draws, this would not prove chess to be a draw. The reason is that it is at least conceivable that there is a very narrow winning strategy that requires dozens of unique moves in every line and the players are just too weak to find them all (like current top engines are too weak to accurately play complex tablebase positions without help).
You believe there may be such a narrow winning strategy. I believe there isn't one. I think you would concede that I'm probably right but you would insist that the possibility of your being correct on that point makes your overall strategy, that of doubting that chess is proven a draw, to be correct. But it's just a difference of opinion, even so. Certainly no basis for some people arguing here to call others "delusional", on the basis of that difference of opinion.
I tend to put my money where my mouth is. Back my own judgement and it pays off, more often than not. I'm not suggesting you don't do that too, so it's just down to personality types. We can agree to differ. I'm perfectly happy with that.
Elroch wrote:
Even if every one of a billion games between the top players were draws, this would not prove chess to be a draw. The reason is that it is at least conceivable that there is a very narrow winning strategy that requires dozens of unique moves in every line and the players are just too weak to find them all (like current top engines are too weak to accurately play complex tablebase positions without help).
Not just conceivable, more and more likely as tablebase construction continues to find longer and longer forced mates.
If, at some point, tablebases run into a wall where there are no more forced mates or great length being found for a significant period (say from 9 piece tablebases all the way to 10 piece), *then* you could make an argument that chess is a forced draw. It would not be proven, but it would be far more robust than the assertions of "knowledge" being made here by a couple of microbes standing on a dust mote whose field of vision is 10^40+ too short-sighted.
stancco wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
stancco wrote:
btickler wrote:
stancco wrote:
Goos one 🤣🤣🤣
we are witnesses of a slack jaw dimness here
🤣🤣🤣
Did you know that your username means "tired out" in Italian?
Yes, I'm aware of that, I mean tired.
I'm just across Italian coast 👋
Whereabouts are you?
Split, Croatia
Io sono Stanco, to not be confused, I mean my name is Stanko.
In the past I played a lot of chess against a Serbian named Miroslav Stankovic, who moved to near Liverpool. I think he got an IM norm before the war in the former Yugoslavia. He was working at a hospital in Bosnia-Herzegovina. For myself, I travelled a lot in the former Yugoslavia, mainly hitchhiking. Was once picked up by the American ambassador's son and stayed with them in Beograd for a while. Around 1973.
I consider you lucky exploring Yugoslavia in 70's!
Unfortunately I don't know mr. Stanković.
I was born in 81.
However, I do know many (G)Masters of chess from Croatia and Bosnia&Hercegovina personally (not to mention their names here).
Glad to hear you, a hail of mine to you. 👋
I went to Yugoslavia a number of times, always hitch-hiking. The only objection was that it was illegal to be asleep in a public place. That included sleeping out at night. I became adept at choosing half-built houses and they were always clean and gave protection from rain. I liked Dubrovnic very much and often went. Had a friend there. Climbed a bit in the Albanian Alps and travelled with some Austrian hippies who were exploring religious centres of the old Serbia, right up near the Albanian border, formed before Serbia contracted. I loved Yugoslavia and of course it was one country, very diverse. Never got to the Novi Sad area but that's more or less the only bit I didn't see. Liked the Macedonian people and those up North, around Maribor and Zagreb. In fact, everywhere.
In Bulgaria while hitch-hiking somewhere near Plovdiv, was very tired indeed and found a big field with a lot of small clusters of undergrowth. Walked right to the middle of it to get away from people and hid near a small copse and slept for the night. In the morning was woken by some noises. Noticed some Russian soldiers about 300 yards (metres) away. Got my stuff all together, packed up as fast and quietly as I could and started to walk back to the road. A sleepy looking Russian came out of a bit of undergrowth and we were face to face, so we sort of ignored each other and carried on. Then some of the bits of undergrowth started to move, shedding bits of tree behind them. Making a clanking sound, these trees were.
I had spent the night right in the middle of a Russian tank battalion and all the clumps of undergrowth were very well disguised Russian tanks .... about 20 of them. 1969.
Optimissed wrote:
haiaku wrote:
The core point is that without an exhaustive proof, there is no doubt that no scientific theory can be guaranteed to hold true in any possible case. Galilean relativity, Newton's law of gravitation and classical mechanics are golden examples. They were thought to be always true, "unbeatable" so to speak, and they were consistent with centuries of experiments. There was no evidence that they might produce quite inaccurate predictions. We all know how it went: they fail miserably under some circumstances.
Not at all. They produce perfectly accurate results that are suitable for the environment in which they were conceived.
😦? They were thought to be universal and they are not.
Optimissed wrote:
You seem to be wanting to introduce a fallacy ... that of assuming that there are mysterious circumstances that alter the characteristics of chess [ . . . ] The rules do not allow for weird, relativistic effects within chess, so you're wrong again.
Is this a straw man? 
What I and others are saying is that there might be yet unknown lines which could disprove the assumption that chess is a draw. While we could safely ignore that Newton's law of gravitation is very incorrect under some circumstances and happily live with that (GPS satellites would not work properly, but...), for a solution a single unexpected line can make all the difference.
Optimissed wrote:
haiaku wrote:
In game theory, "optimal" is not a casual attribute. For chess, it means that an optimal player would be unbeatable in a match with an even number of games: if the game value is a draw, the optimal player would at least draw every game; if it's a win for either colour, the optimal player would always force the win with that colour. Therefore, the optimal player cannot score less than 50% of the points. Without a mathematical, exhaustive proof, a player cannot be guaranteed to be optimal, exactly like a scientific theory, without an exhaustive proof, cannot be guaranteed to always hold true.
This is confused. The first part is unnecessary. At least we know what we mean by "best play" or perhaps, "optimal", because we've been talking about it, in various threads, for about four years now and we did reach a consensus. Off the top of my head, optimal play is that which doesn't alter the game result negatively, for the player who made that move. Some like to say "from the game-theoretic value" but that's unnecessary, because it doesn't add anything useful. Just an illusion of grandeur.
What about the second part?
Optimissed wrote:
haiaku wrote:
This is not what people expect, when they read something like "the game xyz has been solved". They think about a definitive solution, that nobody will be able to disprove, ever.
You could never be sure that there wasn't a mistake in the analysis, due to a glitch of some unexpected kind. So wrong again, I'm afraid.
That is a point already made by @MARattigan. In fact, I said that people do expect a definitive solution, not that they can be 100% sure that a computer-assisted proof is correct. But the point is: is a statement like "chess is a draw because... [unproven motivations]" as acceptable and reliable as a statement like "a computer-assisted proof by exhaustion established that chess is a [draw, win]"?
Great experiences. I admire you, indeed. Wish I was there!
When it comes to Russians btw, they are well known for ignoring their enemies 😁
stancco wrote:
Great experiences. I admire you, indeed. Wish I was there!
When it comes to Russians btw, they are well known for ignoring their enemies 😁
Let's hope so. My instinct was just to look as if I had as much right to be there as he did. Gave him a very slight nod.
It's good to make your acquaintance. It was, indeed, a lot of fun.
haiaku wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
haiaku wrote:
The core point is that without an exhaustive proof, there is no doubt that no scientific theory can be guaranteed to hold true in any possible case. Galilean relativity, Newton's law of gravitation and classical mechanics are golden examples. They were thought to be always true, "unbeatable" so to speak, and they were consistent with centuries of experiments. There was no evidence that they might produce quite inaccurate predictions. We all know how it went: they fail miserably under some circumstances.
Not at all. They produce perfectly accurate results that are suitable for the environment in which they were conceived.
😦? They were thought to be universal and they are not.
That really is not the point. People not anticipating Relativity cannot possibly have a bearing on this. Chess is a confined and fully known paradigm. It is only complexity which makes it difficult and not unknown elements.
Optimissed wrote:
You seem to be wanting to introduce a fallacy ... that of assuming that there are mysterious circumstances that alter the characteristics of chess [ . . . ] The rules do not allow for weird, relativistic effects within chess, so you're wrong again.
Is this a straw man? What I and others are saying is that there might be yet unknown lines which could disprove the assumption that chess is a draw. While we could safely ignore that Newton's law of gravitation is very incorrect under some circumstances and happily live with that (GPS satellites would not work properly, but...), for a solution a single unexpected line can make all the difference.
There's no reason to assume there is one, That's due to the equalising tendency, which I've mentioned. It isn't going to happen.
Optimissed wrote:
haiaku wrote:
In game theory, "optimal" is not a casual attribute. For chess, it means that an optimal player would be unbeatable in a match with an even number of games: if the game value is a draw, the optimal player would at least draw every game; if it's a win for either colour, the optimal player would always force the win with that colour. Therefore, the optimal player cannot score less than 50% of the points. Without a mathematical, exhaustive proof, a player cannot be guaranteed to be optimal, exactly like a scientific theory, without an exhaustive proof, cannot be guaranteed to always hold true.
This is confused. The first part is unnecessary. At least we know what we mean by "best play" or perhaps, "optimal", because we've been talking about it, in various threads, for about four years now and we did reach a consensus. Off the top of my head, optimal play is that which doesn't alter the game result negatively, for the player who made that move. Some like to say "from the game-theoretic value" but that's unnecessary, because it doesn't add anything useful. Just an illusion of grandeur.
What about the second part?
Please see below.
Optimissed wrote:
haiaku wrote:
This is not what people expect, when they read something like "the game xyz has been solved". They think about a definitive solution, that nobody will be able to disprove, ever.
You could never be sure that there wasn't a mistake in the analysis, due to a glitch of some unexpected kind. So wrong again, I'm afraid.
That is a point already made by @MARattigan. In fact, I said that people do expect a definitive solution, not that they can be 100% sure that a computer-assisted proof is correct. But the point is: is a statement like "chess is a draw because... [unproven motivations]" as acceptable and reliable as a statement like "a computer-assisted proof by exhaustion established that chess is a [draw, win]"?>>
I can't remember who made that point first: whether it was MAR or I. MAR has some good ideas occasionally. And it holds, too. It means that you have no reason to believe that there will ever be a reliable proof. All analyses will be impossible to check. Even if you ran them twice, the same glitch could conceivably occur. This means you are no nearer absolute knowledge than you are at the moment. It will only be somewhat more confirmed. It's confirmed enough already because people will doubt that chess is a draw ad infinitum. You will never obtain closure, doing it your way. That's why you have to drop the deductive syllogism which runs as follows:
If we had a full and completely trustworthy analysis of chess then we would know definitively whether chess is a draw.
All analyses completed by SOFTWARE-WRITER-X are fully trustworthy.
We can get an analysis by SOFTWARE-WRITER-X in 1000054 years.
Therefore it will be trustworthy and so we will know whether chess is a draw.
Personally I wouldn't trust it! 
#3864
"From what I've heard not every game at the highest level is a draw."
++ That is right. It is human to err.
Even in ICCF correspondence they sometimes mix up the move order and blunder a piece.
"if almost all chess games are draws that means chess is a draw"
++ No, the higher the level, the more draws. For every win we can pinpoint the error, usually the last move. For the high level draws we cannot pinpoint any error.
"If chess has been proven to be a draw, why are there wins?"
++ Because ultra-weakly solved is not weakly solved. Chess is known to be a draw, but not yet known how. I know for sure 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a black win. Black is up a bishop. If you believe 1 tempo is convertible to a win, then you surely accept 1 bishop is convertible to a win even more. However I do not have a complete game tree up to checkmate. I believe with enough time I can win that as black against Carlsen or against an engine, but I might err at some move.
"There must be some reason not everyone agrees."
++ All stong players agree. Not everyone agrees on scientifically proven facts either.
"I could just as easily say because white has a first move advantage, AND the percentage of white wins at the highest level goes up, that's proof chess is a forced win for white."
++ The win % goes down with level. Chess is a draw, but the path to the draw is wider for white and narrower for black. So black has more ways to err than white.
White can afford to lose a tempo, then white just becomes black. Even black can afford to lose a tempo and white can afford to lose 2 tempi. Black cannot afford to lose 2 tempi: then he gets 1 pawn equivalent behind and that is enough to win.
"Until all games are draws it's evidence, not proof."
++ Yes, it is evidence and not a formal proof. Checkers has been solved to be draw. Checkers is still played and not all Checkers games end in draws. There is still human error especially at the lower level. The proof tree for Checkers has 10^7 positions. Nobody has these memorised.
#3867
"Do you ask a person riding a roller coaster to design roller coasters?"
++ Weakly solving chess is not designing, it is using existing software on existing hardware.
The best person in the world to ask about that was GM Sveshnikov. Others are Kasparov, Kramnik, Carlsen, Karjakin, Caruana, Nepo, Dokhoian, Kazimdzhanov, or any ICCF grandmaster.
"GMs have made statements about draws, and when pressed they always hedge their bets."
++ Nope, see #3854 and #3856.
"Any number you stick in front of "accuracy" here is garbage, because the calculations that derived them are flawed." ++ That is besides the point. The accuracy cannot determine if play is perfect, but it can tell play is not perfect. It is like a modulo 3 primality test: it can determine that a number is not a prime, but it cannot determine that said number is a prime.
"If you eliminate a single position from evaluation based on your fuzzy criteria, your solution fails on the spot."
++ You still do not get it. The accuracy is not used in weakly solving chess. It is only used in defining sensible positions so as to assess the number of sensible positions that intervene.
"my calculations on current supercomputer capabilities and what it would take using current technology to solve chess are dozens of orders of magnitude more accurate"
++ You still do not understand the difference between weakly solving and strongly solving.
tygxc wrote:
#3867
"Do you ask a person riding a roller coaster to design roller coasters?"
++ Weakly solving chess is not designing, it is using existing software on existing hardware.
The best person in the world to ask about that was GM Sveshnikov. Others are Kasparov, Kramnik, Carlsen, Karjakin, Caruana, Nepo, Dokhoian, Kazimdzhanov, or any ICCF grandmaster.
"GMs have made statements about draws, and when pressed they always hedge their bets."
++ Nope, see #3854 and #3856.
"Any number you stick in front of "accuracy" here is garbage, because the calculations that derived them are flawed." ++ That is besides the point. The accuracy cannot determine if play is perfect, but it can tell play is not perfect. It is like a modulo 3 primality test: it can determine that a number is not a prime, but it cannot determine that said number is a prime.
"If you eliminate a single position from evaluation based on your fuzzy criteria, your solution fails on the spot."
++ You still do not get it. The accuracy is not used in weakly solving chess. It is only used in defining sensible positions so as to assess the number of sensible positions that intervene.
"my calculations on current supercomputer capabilities and what it would take using current technology to solve chess are dozens of orders of magnitude more accurate"
++ You still do not understand the difference between weakly solving and strongly solving.
A GM may not be the best person to ask about solving chess. I'd much rather ask a Digital Intelligence expert.
To the last point, a weak solution is an overall verdict on what has been called the game- theoretical value. Could also be the optimum result.
That can't be obtained without a full solution of all possible and relevant games, each explored to the point where it's obvious what the result will be. It would probably be impossible to store all these results and correlate them together. btickler's calculations will be the more accurate.
#3883
"I'd much rather ask a Digital Intelligence expert." ++ No not at all. Top grandmasters, their seconds, and ICCF grandmasters know most about chess and chess analysis.
"a weak solution is an overall verdict on what has been called the game- theoretical value."
++ No. You still do not get it.
Ultra-weakly solved means that the game-theoretic value of the initial position has been determined. In layman's terms: it means a formal proof that chess is a draw.
Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition.
In layman's terms: it means that a way to draw for black has been found against all reasonable white moves. That would need to visit 10^17 positions, can be done in 5 years.
"strongly solved is being used for a game for which such a strategy has been determined for all legal positions." In layman's terms: a 32-piece table base. That is all 10^44 legal positions, beyond the capability of present engines.
"That can't be obtained without a full solution of all possible and relevant games, each explored to the point where it's obvious what the result will be." ++ A solution tree of 10^17 positions would lead to a proof tree of about a billion positions, i.e. about 10 million perfect games.
"It would probably be impossible to store all these results" ++ No, 10 million perfect games are not that much more than existing data bases holding millions of games.
"btickler's calculations will be the more accurate" ++ No, he has no clue. He still does not understand the difference between weakly solving and strongly solving.
We've had this conversation before didn't we, so it's really only an irresolvable difference of opinion? I would say that GMs know about over the board analysis.
tygxc wrote:
#3883
"I'd much rather ask a Digital Intelligence expert." ++ No not at all. Top grandmasters, their seconds, and ICCF grandmasters know most about chess and chess analysis.
"a weak solution is an overall verdict on what has been called the game- theoretical value."
++ No. You still do not get it.
Ultra-weakly solved means that the game-theoretic value of the initial position has been determined. In layman's terms: it means a formal proof that chess is a draw.
Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition.
In layman's terms: it means that a way to draw for black has been found against all reasonable white moves. That would need to visit 10^17 positions, can be done in 5 years.
"strongly solved is being used for a game for which such a strategy has been determined for all legal positions." In layman's terms: a 32-piece table base. That is all 10^44 legal positions, beyond the capability of present engines.
"That can't be obtained without a full solution of all possible and relevant games, each explored to the point where it's obvious what the result will be." ++ A solution tree of 10^17 positions would lead to a proof tree of about a billion positions, i.e. about 10 million perfect games.
"It would probably be impossible to store all these results" ++ No, 10 million perfect games are not that much more than existing data bases holding millions of games.
"btickler's calculations will be the more accurate" ++ No, he has no clue. He still does not understand the difference between weakly solving and strongly solving.
I apparently understand the definitions better than you do. Weakly solving means solving against all moves from the initial position, not just "reasonable" moves. Trying to change the definition of weakly solved to fudge your numbers doesn't help your case, it just makes you look desperate enough to mislead people willfully...
Ultra-weak
Prove whether the first player will win, lose or draw from the initial position, given perfect play on both sides. This can be a non-constructive proof (possibly involving a strategy-stealing argument) that need not actually determine any moves of the perfect play.
Weak
Provide an algorithm that secures a win for one player, or a draw for either, against any possible moves by the opponent, from the beginning of the game.
Strong
Provide an algorithm that can produce perfect moves from any position, even if mistakes have already been made on one or both sides.
Your premise is a bastardized dilution of weakly solved.
#3838
"That figure is meaningless, as it is completely relative to the various engines' levels of play."
++ More time = higher level = more draws
"chess players (with no other applicable qualifications) are not qualified to make a judgment"
++ That is a ridiculous argument with no point at all. Should we ask a hockey player then?
No. You shouldn't ask *any* players, of any game or sport, a question like that. Do you ask a person riding a roller coaster to design roller coasters?
"Neither has written any kind of attempted proof." ++ But they expressed their expert opinions.
Read the topic again. We're not debating opinions. We're debating the possibility of proof.
"Solving chess cannot be achieved using Stockfish. Not now, not 5 years from now. Not 500 years from now." ++ That is your misguided opinion, without anything to back it up.
"Not one of them. They would not even say that chess is a forced draw without hedging their statements, never mind how to get to that conclusion." ++ They did say that.
Nope, time after time, decade after decade, GMs have made statements about draws, and when pressed they always hedge their bets. Because they are smart enough to know that they don't know the answer.
"So you agree with me then, he was pandering to an audience."
++ He was giving an interview to leave a legacy, as he was terminally ill with cancer.
What a great time to make a claim nobody will ever be able to call you out on...
"Your "50% accuracy" is a number that has no meaning in terms of solving chess."
++ You misunderstand. 50% accuracy is an arbitrary threshold to distinguish the few sensible positions from many non-sensible positions. If a position results from a game with 99% or 100% accuracy, then that does not mean the position results from perfect play. If a position results from a game with 49% accuracy, then that means the position does not result from perfect play.
Any number you stick in front of "accuracy" here is garbage, because the calculations that derived them are flawed.
"Those evaluations change in a matter of weeks and sometimes days, with each new release."
++ Yes, but that does not matter. 99% today may be 100% or 96% tomorrow, and 49% today may be 42% or 62% tomorrow, but never 100% or 99%.
Besides the > 50% criterium is only used to define sensible positions to estimate the time needed to weakly solve chess, not in the actual solving.
If you eliminate a single position from evaluation based on your fuzzy criteria, your solution fails on the spot.
"These arguments are no better now" ++ Those are solid arguments based on facts and figures, unlike your own ridiculous 'million years' based on erroneous toilet paper scribbling.
Lol. No, my calculations on current supercomputer capabilities and what it would take using current technology to solve chess are dozens of orders of magnitude more accurate than your assessment.
"nobody is going to put up the money" ++ Maybe. Humans have walked on the Moon. Unmanned vehicles have driven on Mars. Humans can walk on Mars. The only limit is money.
A pointless argument. Do you feel that FTL travel is also therefore just a matter of money? Because that leap is closer to what your premise is. There's no "walking on the moon" steps in terms in terms of solving chess.