And I don't really like saying this but Fischer wasn't noted as the epitome of wisdom in some other avenues of his approach to life and giving examples of losing games as evidence of occasional faulty thinking also applies to Our Bobby. Basically he agrees with you. You both have a similar attitude which differs from mine, which, in turn, agrees with that of other strong masters.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
#3939
"sacrifices were sometimes valid "
++ Of course sacrifices are sometimes valid. But 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is no such time.
That is also why the good assistants are needed.
"Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess." - GM Sveshnikov (+)
The task of the good assistants i.e. (ICCF) (grand)masters is to launch calculations preferably from 26-men positions, but also to end calculations in clearly drawn, or clearly won positions, where they would agree on a draw or where they would resign in a real (correspondence) game.
1 pawn is enough to win.
The plan is to queen the pawn.
In the initial position white is up 1 tempo.
3 tempi = 1 pawn.
You cannot queen 0.33 pawn.
1 tempo is not enough to win.
The game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw.
After 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 white is up a bishop.
1 bishop = 3 pawns.
1 pawn is enough to win.
The plan is to queen the pawn.
1 bishop is enough to win.
The plan is to trade the bishop for a pawn.
The position after 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a win for black.
That is simple human logic from simple human knowledge.
Now try the same with brute force by exhaustion
So 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a forced checkmate in 82 moves.
But what if white plays differently?
Then white loses in a different way.
tygxc wrote:
#3939
"sacrifices were sometimes valid "
++ Of course sacrifices are sometimes valid. But 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is no such time.
That is also why the good assistants are needed.
"Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess." - GM Sveshnikov (+)
The task of the good assistants i.e. (ICCF) (grand)masters is to launch calculations preferably from 26-men positions, but also to end calculations in clearly drawn, or clearly won positions, where they would agree on a draw or where they would resign in a real (correspondence) game.
1 pawn is enough to win.
The plan is to queen the pawn.
In the initial position white is up 1 tempo.
3 tempi = 1 pawn.
You cannot queen 0.33 pawn.
1 tempo is not enough to win.
The game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw.
After 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 white is up a bishop.
1 bishop = 3 pawns.
1 pawn is enough to win.
The plan is to queen the pawn.
1 bishop is enough to win.
The plan is to trade the bishop for a pawn.
The position after 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a win for black.
That is simple human logic from simple human knowledge.
Now try the same with brute force by exhaustion
So 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a forced checkmate in 82 moves.
But what if white plays differently?
Then white loses in a different way.
I keep hearing people quoting advanced statistics or whatever to say that Chess is a "draw" before the first move, as if movement isn't required. White has to move, Black has to move. Humans don't play perfect chess and computers don't compete in open events. Thus, whether Chess is "solved" by computers or not doesn't really matters.
Sure, there are vehicles capable of going at supersonic speeds, but we still have olympic sprinting. Humans aren't displaced by machines when it comes to organized competition *because they aren't allowed to enter and their skills are not 100% transferable to humans*.
#3948
"whether Chess is "solved" by computers or not doesn't really matters."
++ Well, yes and no.
Weakly solving chess requires a proof tree of a billion positions, that is 10 million perfect games. Nobody can memorise 10 million games. However, when somebody has memorised say 10,000 perfect games, he would have a big advantage.
Aug 9, 2022
0
#3886
Optimissed wrote:
No-one has shown that I am not reasonably entitled to believe that I know that chess is drawn with best play. One might remark that there was no proper opposition and that a contrary argument could be better represented by cleverer people. But I can assure you (anyone who is so bored that they're reading this) that a discussion with more able people would mean that there was a good chance chance of them understanding and perhaps agreeing with at least some of the points I've raised.
Of course you are entitled to believe whatever you please on any subject. You can believe that chess is a draw with best play (I concur). You can believe that Britannia still rules the waves. You can believe that Helios draws the sun across the sky in his chariot every day. You can believe you are the best-informed and smartest person commenting in these forums.
But it should be apparent that what you cannot do is convince everyone else here to agree with your beliefs or give your comments greater respect than their own beliefs.
tygxc wrote:
#3939
"sacrifices were sometimes valid "
++ Of course sacrifices are sometimes valid. But 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is no such time.
That is also why the good assistants are needed.
"Give me five years, good assistants and the latest computers
- I will bring all openings to technical endgames and "close" chess." - GM Sveshnikov (+)
The task of the good assistants i.e. (ICCF) (grand)masters is to launch calculations preferably from 26-men positions, but also to end calculations in clearly drawn, or clearly won positions, where they would agree on a draw or where they would resign in a real (correspondence) game.
1 pawn is enough to win.
The plan is to queen the pawn.
In the initial position white is up 1 tempo.
3 tempi = 1 pawn.
You cannot queen 0.33 pawn.
1 tempo is not enough to win.
The game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw.
After 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 white is up a bishop.
1 bishop = 3 pawns.
1 pawn is enough to win.
The plan is to queen the pawn.
1 bishop is enough to win.
The plan is to trade the bishop for a pawn.
The position after 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a win for black.
That is simple human logic from simple human knowledge.
Now try the same with brute force by exhaustion
So 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a forced checkmate in 82 moves.
But what if white plays differently?
Then white loses in a different way.
You do understand that all the point valuations you are using are approximations, right? Not absolutes you can use in any calculations whatsoever.
If you set pawns to 1 point by default in the starting position, then all other values are fluid. The value of a tempo, the value of every other piece, and the value of the pawn itself in a given position. The statistical valuations at scale are only accurate for the current level of engine play... which is flawed.
What is the value of the pawn at a2 in this position?
It's 9. The value of the pawn at a2 is 9. Or, more correctly, the value of this pawn is the same as the value of a queen's default value, because it already *is* effectively a queen.
What does Stockfish say? 7.5 using chess.com, until the horizon closes in further. 8.7 using the desktop version at 30 ply (over 1 minute). In the simplest of positions, the engine is 3.33% off with about 3 minutes calculation. Now extrapolate this to your method...how long did you want each "relevant" position to be analyzed for again...?
so true
mpaetz wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
No-one has shown that I am not reasonably entitled to believe that I know that chess is drawn with best play. One might remark that there was no proper opposition and that a contrary argument could be better represented by cleverer people. But I can assure you (anyone who is so bored that they're reading this) that a discussion with more able people would mean that there was a good chance chance of them understanding and perhaps agreeing with at least some of the points I've raised.
Of course you are entitled to believe whatever you please on any subject. You can believe that chess is a draw with best play (I concur). You can believe that Britannia still rules the waves. You can believe that Helios draws the sun across the sky in his chariot every day. You can believe you are the best-informed and smartest person commenting in these forums.
Not necessarily best informed.
But it should be apparent that what you cannot do is convince everyone else here to agree with your beliefs or give your comments greater respect than their own beliefs.
Definitely true. You deserve a glass of shampagne substitute, old fella. I am somewhat inebriated because when I got the fish and chips, which we seem to be having about once a fortnight these days, I said to Lady Optimissed, "hey you, do you want to wrap your gob round a couple of glasses of that nice stuff we have in the fridge" and she said "sure thing, you idiot". But in the event she had one glass only and so I had to have five because it would be a pity to let it go flat. And I had a relatively empty stomach.
Optimissed wrote:
Not necessarily best informed.
You can believe you are the best-informed and smartest person commenting in the forums
Not necessarily best informed.
Surreal, isn't it?
Your entire universe is surreal, so yes it must be.
Optimissed wrote:
Your entire universe is surreal, so yes it must be.
Not even this page, never mind "the forums".
Never mind.
Aug 9, 2022
0
#3894
btickler wrote:
What does Stockfish say? 7.5 using chess.com, until the horizon closes in further. 8.7 using the desktop version at 30 ply (over 1 minute). In the simplest of positions, the engine is 3.33% off with about 3 minutes calculation. Now extrapolate this to your method...how long did you want each "relevant" position to be analyzed for again...?
I think it does not use the value 9 for a queen. Even after the queen is on the board it rates it 8.x.
This is strange as winning a pawn in 2 or 3 moves is trivial. But it is worth remembering it is adjusting with other positional factors (activity of kings, pawn control of the centre).
All complete nonsense - it's surprising the thing can play chess at all. 
I expect it's all too much of a strain.
<<Even after the queen is on the board it rates it 8.x.>>
Agreed but it's capable of surprising things. Who knows, a Q not yet promoted may well be worth more than a Q on the board. After all, it inflates its positional assessments as opposed to material ones. See what I mean?
Elroch wrote:
I think it does not use the value 9 for a queen. Even after the queen is on the board it rates it 8.x.
This is strange as I winning a pawn in 2 or 3 moves is trivial. But it is worth remembering it is adjusting with other positional factors (activity of kings, pawn control of the centre).
All complete nonsense - it's surprising the thing can play chess at all.
The point is that the valuations are fluid, and that engines' valuations are off by a factor that completely precludes Tygxc's premise when applied at that scale. The number of pre-filtered eliminated positions by mistaken criteria would be gigantic, and the number of misevaluations of chosen positions would also be gigantic. You might as well march a million duckling babies over a stormdrain grating and then count the 937,000 you have left and declare it a million ducklings, problem solved.
I'm sure no engine uses integer values for any pieces other than pawns in the starting positions anymore. Engine improvements are sometimes derived from specific ideas, but often are just tweakings of values that are experimented with and found to work against other engines. In that sense, engines are simply evolving to play better against other engines and human players, not to play chess perfectly. Only when they hit the tablebase do they consistently achieve perfect play.
Let's see. A Q not promoted could be assessed as a notional Q, capable of parachuting in anywhere. A Q promoted is tied to its square and then to accessible squares. Programming error based on that, perhaps.
Also, tygxc's premise isn't worth discussing. It's clearly and obviously wrong and he isn't going to accept help with it, either. You're wasting your time. Of course, that's what you're here to do.
I clicked on Elroch's link.
<<<<Chess theorists have long debated how enduring White's initiative is and whether, if both sides play perfectly, the game should end in a win for White or a draw. George Walker wrote in 1846 that, "The first move is an advantage, ... but if properly answered, the first move is of little worth".[29] Steinitz, the first World Champion, who is widely considered the father of modern chess,[30][31][32] wrote in 1889, "It is now conceded by all experts that by proper play on both sides the legitimate issue of a game ought to be a draw."[33] Lasker and Capablanca, the second and third World Champions, agreed.[34][35][36] Reuben Fine, one of the world's leading players from 1936 to 1951,[37] wrote that White's opening advantage is too intangible to be sufficient for a win without an error by Black.[38]>>>>
But the above is improperly described in its introduction. The ensuing isn't evidence of even the beginnings of a debate. Each past Master is expressing certainty that it's drawn.
ie, "is sufficient"
"is now conceded"
"is of little worth"
No hint of a maybe amongst them.
The same players were wrong in their reasoning in every game of chess they lost over the board, despite committing their full efforts and using a lifetime of experience. At some point in every lost game they played a move which they believed was best and which lost.
Their knowledge and understanding was imperfect, therefore it is ridiculous to suggest they have any basis for certainty in assessments of the initial position in chess, without incorporating any more reasoning than their inductive chess knowledge.
The wiser position is that of Fischer, a stronger player than any of them - strong confidence, not certainty.
Although I just passed you a compliment, it doesn't give you carte blanche to assume that your queries are always to the point. Being a strong chess player does not, necessarily, make a person right in all their assertions. It's an assertion to claim that we cannot know chess is drawn, just as the reverse is also an assertion. Strong confidence can equate with knowledge. Other great chess masters have been more confident than Fischer, regarding the question.