I think opening the door of an aeroplane at 20,000 feet and jumping out would be a good test. After all, there's no proof that you'll die. Go for it .... you could learn from it.
D.B. Cooper jumped from 10,000 feet. He's sort of a local legend. So from 20,000 feet you'd have the advantage of about twice as long to decide your next move.
The position is either a win, draw or a loss. In this case, it's a win for black. Probability isn't involved. How can it be, except for someone who believes that the win is down to chance?
Yes, the position is either a win, a draw, or a loss. But until every line has been calculated, there is no way to prove that it is a win for black. I believe it's a win for black, I'm almost certain of it. But there are many positions where a player is down a bishop but the position is a win or a draw. It's possible, no matter how unlikely, that white has a line that gets to one of those win/draw positions by force, even after 2. Ba6. And it will remain possible until someone, or something goes through every possible variation of 2. Ba6.
That seems pretty obvious. There are sacrifices in chess that often lead to winning. So it's also possible there is a very deep sacrifice (that no computer has even come close to discovering) somewhere in the opening or middle game. Which leads to a forced win, from the opening position. For either black or white.
For someone who pretends she believes that chess is a forced win for white, everything is obvious if it's contrary.
I was just agreeing that it's obvious it's a win, loss, or draw. And also obvious that it's possible that what currently is believed to be a loss could in fact be a draw or win. Over time the ability to assess chess positions gets better, so opinions change.
I think opening the door of an aeroplane at 20,000 feet and jumping out would be a good test. After all, there's no proof that you'll die. Go for it .... you could learn from it.
D.B. Cooper jumped from 10,000 feet. He's sort of a local legend. So from 20,000 feet you'd have the advantage of about twice as long to decide your next move.
Did he live?
The position is either a win, draw or a loss. In this case, it's a win for black. Probability isn't involved. How can it be, except for someone who believes that the win is down to chance?
Yes, the position is either a win, a draw, or a loss. But until every line has been calculated, there is no way to prove that it is a win for black. I believe it's a win for black, I'm almost certain of it. But there are many positions where a player is down a bishop but the position is a win or a draw. It's possible, no matter how unlikely, that white has a line that gets to one of those win/draw positions by force, even after 2. Ba6. And it will remain possible until someone, or something goes through every possible variation of 2. Ba6.
That seems pretty obvious. There are sacrifices in chess that often lead to winning. So it's also possible there is a very deep sacrifice (that no computer has even come close to discovering) somewhere in the opening or middle game. Which leads to a forced win, from the opening position. For either black or white.
For someone who pretends she believes that chess is a forced win for white, everything is obvious if it's contrary.
I was just agreeing that it's obvious it's a win, loss, or draw. And also obvious that it's possible that what currently is believed to be a loss could in fact be a draw or win. Over time the ability to assess chess positions gets better, so opinions change.
What I can't quite understand is that these people think probability is involved in some way.
I know very well I think differently from many or maybe from most people. I try to adopt the mental attitude that has the best chance of making the World conform to my wishes. If I want a football team to score, I visualise it, complete with bulging net and rapturous joy of the scorer. Probably, most people here believe that can't possibly work and that I must exist in a Word of delusion. But it's just about different ways of thinking. Some people think their way of thinking is the only rational or reasonable way. I like certainty because it empowers the mind. They prefer self-doubt because it causes them to feel that they're wise. So we're all winners really, but some much more than others.
I know that K+R vs. K is won, vs. any engine, and I will happily demonstrate it.
I'll watch. (With which colour are you going to win?)
If you didn't like that example, the fact is that White cannot necessarily force mate in KRK even from White to play positions (which rules out stalemates and hanging rooks); in fact from the majority of White to play positions.
Here is another you might like to try. See if you can force mate from the final position (shown) against the computer.
In that case, the kind of proof demanded is incorrect, if it cannot possibly be given.
But it can be given (whether hypothetically or when the technology is developed in the future), because there are a finite number of possible positions after 2. Ba6. I'm not sure where you stand in the original "Will chess ever be solved?" question, or even if you've been involved in that discussion at all, but the very question of whether or not it is possible to analyze every position (from the starting position or after Ba6) is the entire point of this thread.
In that case, the kind of proof demanded is incorrect, if it cannot possibly be given.
But it can be given (whether hypothetically or when the technology is developed in the future), because there are a finite number of possible positions after 2. Ba6. I'm not sure where you stand in the original "Will chess ever be solved?" question, or even if you've been involved in that discussion at all, but the very question of whether or not it is possible to analyze every position (from the starting position or after Ba6) is the entire point of this thread.
I'll tell you what my opinions are then.
Chess is undoubtedly a draw. Nothing has occurred to change that assessment. Chess will never be solved. I asked my son, who's a mathematician, if chess can be represented mathematically. He said not. Therefore at least at the moment it isn't possible to develop algorithms that are perfect, which would be needed if the long route of analysing all possible chess games is to be avoided. Many here think that "only" positions need be analysed. that's incorrect, since there IS no algorithmic analysis tool that's accurate, so the long route must be taken. I'm only assuming my son is more qualified than others here to judge. I may be wrong.
So in my opinion, chess will never be solved, if that means all possible meaningful games. Even with meaningful games, the number of move permutations is effectively infinite, in that there may not be enough time in this galaxy to do it, given present technology.
The question of Ba6 came about because tygxc asserted that irrelevant lines can be recognised and rejected. That is, lines where an obvious mistake has been made need not be analysed. He gave the Ba6 line as an example. Their objections are correct in principle, because if Ba6 is just an example, there will be many other lines, less clear.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of people who are pretty poor at debating. They tended to take the Ba6 line as a concrete example in that they claimed it isn't possible to know the result of that 100%. Although their point is good in principle, they made it in the wrong way, since it is definitely possible to know absolutely that Ba6 loses for white. It's what comes of trying to amuse ourselves by debating things with people who miss nuances and get the emphases on points wrong. It happens, it's life, but when you combine that with dogmatism, they always have to be right. They haven't answered me when I asked them if they would correct Carlsen equally vehemently if he claimed it is a loss. Dogmatists congregate on threads like this one. "Normal" people tend to talk elsewhere.
In that case, the kind of proof demanded is incorrect, if it cannot possibly be given.
But it can be given (whether hypothetically or when the technology is developed in the future), because there are a finite number of possible positions after 2. Ba6. I'm not sure where you stand in the original "Will chess ever be solved?" question, or even if you've been involved in that discussion at all, but the very question of whether or not it is possible to analyze every position (from the starting position or after Ba6) is the entire point of this thread.
Even with meaningful games, the number of move permutations is effectively infinite, in that there may not be enough time in this galaxy to do it, given present technology.
Interesting, I appreciate you explaining your perspective, so thank you for that 
I suppose it really boils down to how far technology develops. There was a time where the current level of engines was believed to be impossible.
These people, talking about "proof", miss the point because they're only interested in deductive proof and if the premises don't exist, then a syllogism is impossible. So, instead of becoming nihilists, which is what they're doing, they need to calm down a bit and, in particular, they should desist from telling other people how to think.
@4222
"whether hypothetically or when the technology is developed in the future"
++ Present technology can weakly solve chess in 5 years now
"there are a finite number of possible positions after 2. Ba6." ++I showed it is a forced checkmate in 82. There is a finite number of possible positions in the initial position as well.
"Will chess ever be solved?" ++ Chess can be weakly solved in 5 years, but if it will depends on money to hire the assistants and rent the computers.
"whether or not it is possible to analyze every position" ++ The point is that not every position needs analysis, some positions like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 can be dismissed immediately
@4208
"There are lots of piece sacrifices that are unclear or even win the game."
++ That is right, but 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is no such case.
In game theory unclear does not exist: it is either a draw, a win, or a loss.
Per Capablanca any material advantage no matter how small is enough to win the game,
when all other factors are equal.
In this case black is up a bishop, a considerable material advantage.
All other factors are equal.
So that position is a loss for white.
I even proved above it is a forced checkmate in 82.
So weakly solving chess does not need to burn engine time on 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6.
I think opening the door of an aeroplane at 20,000 feet and jumping out would be a good test. After all, there's no proof that you'll die. Go for it .... you could learn from it.
D.B. Cooper jumped from 10,000 feet. He's sort of a local legend. So from 20,000 feet you'd have the advantage of about twice as long to decide your next move.
Did he live?
I'll say yes.
Felix Baumgartner jumped from 127,852 feet, but that was a balloon.
I've beaten D.B. Cooper by a couple of thousand feet several times. Opinions differ on the question of whether I'm alive.
googolplex.
Where's the diatribe about what a stupid term googol is? 
You don't like "weak solution", but you are fine with googolplex...
These people, talking about "proof", miss the point because they're only interested in deductive proof and if the premises don't exist, then a syllogism is impossible. So, instead of becoming nihilists, which is what they're doing, they need to calm down a bit and, in particular, they should desist from telling other people how to think.
...he said, telling other people how to think.
Can't you, sort of, pretend you know what's going on in a way that makes you look like you have at least some intelligence? You tell me off and say that I can't criticise you without resorting to insults but when you are as confused and generally childish and repetitive as you are, it isn't possible to find anything worth answering. You're just so completely obsessive and you pretend that things you say make sense and are even intelligent. Honestly, you are not worth even trying to answer because you will just find something else completely foolish to say. You're a troll, btickler. You always start your bouts of trolling in the hope that someone will insult you, so you can feel superior.
If that were true (it's isn't), it would beg the question...why do you then deliver? Some type of aberration on your part? Can't wait to hear your usual noble self-aggrandizing spin on this..."I'm doing you a favor, blah blah blah...".
@4200
I hope you are still alive when Chess is solved with around 10^17 positions.
You have that hope because I actually hold a position with risk. Your "well, it won't work until this exact set of events happen to my specifications, but don't ask me to pay for it..." position is carefully crafted to allow you to retreat from failure forever.
This is how crackpots protect their egos. In twenty years time you'll still be here spouting the same garbage.
Of course I know that Ba6 is won for black. Maybe it's too late to tell you not to be ridiculous. Also, Elroch explained that he had made a simple mistake. Stop behaving like a kid and going on and on about it. Your reading comprehension is currently about zero. You're cracking up and I do mean that.
You're not even talking about the same incident, which is par for your course. If you know that Ba6 is won for black, then you can beat Stockfish from that position, on command. Go ahead and demonstrate, without using an engine. You can do it on live chess.
I know that K+R vs. K is won, vs. any engine, and I will happily demonstrate it. If you are claiming to know, 100%, then you are claiming the same level of confidence. You would think after a decade of watching Ponz get pounded for his 99.9999% that you might have learned something about making hyperbolic assertions...but alas, no.
Even if chess was solved and we knew a certain position is winning, more often than not we still wouldnt be able to beat stockfish from there. I'm not sure what this conversation is supposed to prove
If you cannot win a position against *any* opposition put forth, then you cannot claim you are "100% sure" it is a winning position. Can't get any more obvious than that.
The position is either a win, draw or a loss. In this case, it's a win for black. Probability isn't involved. How can it be, except for someone who believes that the win is down to chance?
Yes, the position is either a win, a draw, or a loss. But until every line has been calculated, there is no way to prove that it is a win for black. I believe it's a win for black, I'm almost certain of it. But there are many positions where a player is down a bishop but the position is a win or a draw. It's possible, no matter how unlikely, that white has a line that gets to one of those win/draw positions by force, even after 2. Ba6. And it will remain possible until someone, or something goes through every possible variation of 2. Ba6.
That seems pretty obvious. There are sacrifices in chess that often lead to winning. So it's also possible there is a very deep sacrifice (that no computer has even come close to discovering) somewhere in the opening or middle game. Which leads to a forced win, from the opening position. For either black or white.
For someone who pretends she believes that chess is a forced win for white, everything is obvious if it's contrary.