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.
Sure. The final position occurs on move 2, when white correctly plays Rh1#.
Unfortunately I was playing White and I don't seem to have quite got the hang of it. I'm not the only one; there are plenty of posts in the forum showing you how to mate in 45 in this endgame with only a little help from your opponent.
In fact Coach doesn't appear to have got the hang of it either judging by his comments on Black's move 3. (You'll need to zoom in to about 250%.)
Note that Coach is the one who tells @tygxc whether or not games are sensible, so that could explain a few things.
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.
But you fail to distinguish between being able to win against any possible line and giving the analysis for every possible line. They are completely different things and you are only showing your lack of an IQ by going on and on and on and on about it. You're the one making the wild assertions. I suppose after
1. d4 ....Nf6
2. Qh5
you'll claim that Carlsen et al would be wrong to claim that as a win for black too. If not that, where do you draw the line? Where is the miraculous point where btickler and Elroch can suddenly tell the difference between "we don't know" and "it's a loss"?
It's occurring to me that you wouldn't even be arguing this way, if you didn't have someone you know is cleverer than you, backing you up. You wouldn't dare, because you at heart you must know you are comparatively destitute of brain cells. But you're both incorrect to make these rather ridiculous assertions that it cannot be known that such simple positions are losses.
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.
Sure. The final position occurs on move 2, when white correctly plays Rh1#.
But where is the PROOF? You're wrong if you can't show the PROOF!! 
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.
I'm aware that you can't suddenly change yourself from a dullard into something viable. I'm suggesting how you might improve your behaviour, by refraining from repeating very foolish things ad infinitum.
tygxc must be quietly laughing, because you've suddenly grabbed the mantle from him and are competing for "the most foolish ever prize", in my view very successfully.
Anyway, here's a test. Is the position where my opponent resigns, in this blitz game played three years ago, a win for white? How do you know??
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.
Pointless convo but thats not how it works... I couldve went through and recorded every line of a certain position on a computer screen to prove its winning, it obviously doesnt mean me or any other human is capable of beating stockfish in that position.. This is going to be the case if chess eventually gets solved.
^^ Being able to win is not identical to knowing it's a win. Complete misrepresentation, by those who don't understand the basics.
Well, yeah. No one taught me how to win at this. It's merely a test of strategy if I'm being completely honest. I have to constantly maneuver my pieces around to see what moves I'm more comfortable with that could actually give me an advantage. Of course, those moves don't always give me the biggest win of all, but at least I can reflect on my past moves. There's no descriptive way of winning at this, you just play. At least that's what my personal experience was
I'm aware that you can't suddenly change yourself from a dullard into something viable. I'm suggesting how you might improve your behaviour, by refraining from repeating very foolish things ad infinitum.
tygxc must be quietly laughing, because you've suddenly grabbed the mantle from him and are competing for "the most foolish ever prize", in my view very successfully.
Dullard is a term I would apply to those who are just obliviously meandering through life thinking they are all that and a bag of chips without any palpable evidence of it...if I were to use such a word, that is.
Pointless convo but thats not how it works... I couldve went through and recorded every line of a certain position on a computer screen to prove its winning, it obviously doesnt mean me or any other human is capable of beating stockfish in that position.. This is going to be the case if chess eventually gets solved.
Who are you arguing with again? You are agreeing with my point.
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.
Sure. The final position occurs on move 2, when white correctly plays Rh1#.
But where is the PROOF? You're wrong if you can't show the PROOF!!
Now you're just reaching, which is the state you always get into:
- Namecalling
- Abandoning logic and hiding behind surface level assertions and thinking
Next comes...
- Swearing off contact ever again
Rinse and repeat.
But you fail to distinguish between being able to win against any possible line and giving the analysis for every possible line. They are completely different things and you are only showing your lack of an IQ by going on and on and on and on about it. You're the one making the wild assertions. I suppose after
1. d4 ....Nf6
2. Qh5
you'll claim that Carlsen et al would be wrong to claim that as a win for black too. If not that, where do you draw the line? Where is the miraculous point where btickler and Elroch can suddenly tell the difference between "we don't know" and "it's a loss"?
It's occurring to me that you wouldn't even be arguing this way, if you didn't have someone you know is cleverer than you, backing you up. You wouldn't dare, because you at heart you must know you are comparatively destitute of brain cells. But you're both incorrect to make these rather ridiculous assertions that it cannot be known that such simple positions are losses.
Lol. Everything is about measuring people's relative "cleverness" with you. It's like a broken record. If you actually stopped measuring and tried to work your way through a real argument, people might find *you* more clever than they currently do.
Someday you're going to join an adult discussion group filled with Elrochs and Ziryabs (and people like me), and that would be funny to watch.
You aren't happy unless you're picking fights with people.
Your entire conversation here has been about how you're right and I'm wrong, when anyone can see that 1 d4 d5 2. Qa6 is lost for white. All I'm saying is that I can see that it's definitely lost for white and somehow, according to you, I'm wrong to say that.
Now stop making the forums unpleasant for others.
Oh and this isn't about other people. It's about you. If you want to continue to pick fights and insult people because you don't understand their arguments, you'll have to take the consequences. There can be points when all people can do is to point out your intellectual limitations. If you could at least show willing to try to understand arguments made by others, instead of trying to make fun of them all the time, at least people would have more sympathy for you and probably wouldn't dislike you so much.
Almost every argument that you and I have ever had has been caused by your failure to understand something I've raised when talking to others. So then you butt in and start with the sly insults. Everyone knows what you're like. And you object when the root cause of your failure to understand just about anything, that isn't directly related to computers, is pointed out. Yet you cause it by your constantly sly, vindictive, passive aggressive behaviour.
Because of the troll?
Anyway, both Elroch and btickler are wrong to claim that in order to be sure that a chess position is lost, every possible line needs to be looked at.
That illustrates the problems with "solving chess", though. If they were to be believed then to achieve the so-called "ultra-weak" solution, to use the bad terminology, which is whether chess is a win or a draw by best play, the full ultra-strong solution has to be traced, even though most of that is nonsense in chess terms, consisting of random moves. Unfortunately, if they are incapable of understanding that positions have to be assessed, then tygxc's 10^17 or whatever positions is out of the window and it becomes the full 10^120 positions or whatever it is. But I suspect that Elroch is deliberately trolling and btickler took his bait. He set him up and is watching the fun.
Pointless convo but thats not how it works... I couldve went through and recorded every line of a certain position on a computer screen to prove its winning, it obviously doesnt mean me or any other human is capable of beating stockfish in that position.. This is going to be the case if chess eventually gets solved.
Who are you arguing with again? You are agreeing with my point.
Just seen this. No he is disagreeing with your point.
Chess is finite.
No probability there, get it?
It has NO weak or strong solution.
These are all SOLUTIONS. All possible draws. All the lines in which your opponent with absolute knowledge still doesn't have the wining line. There are many of these lines whatsoever, I mean the draw lines.
Call it a domain of SOLUTIONS if you like.
The rest ARE NOT SOLUTIONS because at some point one side (or both sides) make(s) mistake(s) so that the forced win(s) is/are (was/were) possible.
All this said, of course, is in a sense of availability of a forced mate aside the Fide foolish rules like 50moves or such.
And what is of the most relevance for this here thread is the probability that the chess already is - SOLVED.
It does prove that, when faced with a chess position which is obviously, clearly and definitely lost for one side, btickler can't tell it's lost. Fair enough, because he's a weak player but next, he tells others that they can't tell it's definitely lost either.
So if Carlsen, Fischer, Kasparov and Capablanca were lined up and agreeing that it's won for black, he'd be telling them that they can't know that. I wonder who has to give him permission, before he can agree that it's won.
Yes, Carlsen, Fischer, Kasparov, and Capablanca would all be wrong. Quite obviously, as well.
I suppose you're the kind of person that believed the 4 minute mile would never be broken...you know, because the runners said so and who knows more about the human body and it's capabilities to run than a runner? Lol.