Optimissed wrote:
We can safely say that the probability that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses by force is 1.
Based on assumptions, can be dismissed.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
@4299
There is no probability: a position is either a draw, a win, or a loss. There are no in between probabilities. There is no probably winning or losing, only either draw, win, or loss.
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a sure loss for white, based on knowledge. Likewise 1 e4 d5 2 Qg4 and 1 e4 Nf6 2 Qh5 are sure losses for white. That are no assumptions, that is knowledge.
1 e4 b5, 1 e4 f5, 1 d4 g5 are sure losses for black, no assumptions, but knowledge.
There is no need for any magical algorithm to decide so. Any human with knowledge of chess can and a grandmaster surely can.
Typewriter44 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
We can safely say that the probability that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses by force is 1.
Based on assumptions, can be dismissed.
No. Two points. Firstly, your comment is also based on an assumption. That's where people like Elroch go wrong, by falsely attributing their own subjective impressions to "objectivity". There is actually no such thing as objectivity. Only the attempt to be objective is real. You are making an assumption yourself and therefore the blanket judgement that contrary assumptions are incorrect is itself incorrect. It's due to the real nature of evidence which is needed to provide a base for any deductive thought. The position you and Elroch are taking is essentially nihilistic and it forbids any deduction, since evidence is always inductive.
I'm quite a way ahead of anyone else here in my thinking and you need to catch up.
Secondly, your comment is blind in that you haven't seen where it fits in to my conclusion about all this. So you're also jumping the gun.
Aug 26, 2022
0
#4245
tygxc wrote:
@4299
There is no probability: a position is either a draw, a win, or a loss. There are no in between probabilities. There is no probably winning or losing, only either draw, win, or loss.
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a sure loss for white, based on knowledge. Likewise 1 e4 d5 2 Qg4 and 1 e4 Nf6 2 Qh5 are sure losses for white. That are no assumptions, that is knowledge.
1 e4 b5, 1 e4 f5, 1 d4 g5 are sure losses for black, no assumptions, but knowledge.
There is no need for any magical algorithm to decide so. Any human with knowledge of chess can and a grandmaster surely can.
It is true that they are all wins, draw, or losses. But assuming that a queen, bishop, or pawn up is a win is 100% an assumption.
@4302
"But assuming that a queen, bishop, or pawn up is a win is 100% an assumption."
++ That is knowledge of centuries of human play and analysis.
It has also been verified by GM Kaufman with engines.
'Any material advantage, no matter how small, assures victory, other factors being equal.'
- Capablanca, Capablanca's Last Chess Lectures p. 60.
The 'other factors being equal' requires human judgement: is there any form of compensation?
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6, 1 e4 Nf6 2 Qh5, 1 e4 d5 2 Qg4, 1 e4 f5, 1 e4 b5, 1 d4 g5
clearly have no compensation of any kind and thus are sure losses.
Capablanca even explains how to win:
A position with an extra pawn is won, the plan is to queen the pawn.
A position with an extra piece is won, the plan is to trade the piece for a pawn.
Note the proof I provided that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is a forced checkmate in 82 follows exactly the plan of Capablanca: the piece is traded for a pawn, the pawn queens, the queen delivers checkmate.
Aug 26, 2022
0
#4247
Centuries of analysis show that it looks to be a win. Not that it is certainly a win.
@4304
Capablanca wrote 'assures victory' so it is sure, not looks like.
It's a win. Understanding that is a product of chess knowledge, which doesn't entirely depend on ratings. After all, a bullet rating of 2700 may mean nothing except a person can move fast. Those who maintain it may not be a win have less and not more understanding. However, there will be positions, not unlike that one, where we cannot be sure. That isn't one of them. The probability of it being a win is 1 and the probability of that statement being correct is 1.
I'd like to see anyone refute the idea that 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 is a win for black. There's a point to that challenge.
Aug 26, 2022
0
#4250
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
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.
They would be wrong if they had claimed that.
However, both of them understand that to verify a strategy for one side, it is only necessary to exhaustively analyse the moves of the other side.
In the case of your losing position, it is necessary to find a strategy for the other side and analyse every single legal defensive move against it.
Unless you are prepared to duplicate your arguments to be with regard to
1. d4 ...Nf6 2. Qh5
you lose the argument. I win either way. If you don't think it's a loss for white,
I think it's a loss for white. I also think 1. e4 e5 2. Bh6 is a loss for white. Note the word "think". It indicates a state of belief which may not be certain.
you're inept.
Phew, escaped arrogant judgement
If you do, then you have to explain exactly where the demarcation lies between knowing something's a loss and not being sure.
I have explained this several times but not well enough.
Inductive reasoning can lead to extremely high confidence that something is true, but not certainty. This is not just a claim, it is a theorem.
Treated formally, using the only consistent framework for the purpose - Bayesian probability - the posterior probability never reaches 1 with inductive reasoning from prior probabilities and evidence.
By contrast deductive reasoning deals solely with probabilities of 1 and 0 - known as True and False in boolean logic - and is able to come to the conclusion that a conclusion is True - its probability is 1.
That's just the way it is. Deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are what you use, whether you realise or not, and however imprecisely they are used. The former can reach quantifiable certainty while the latter can be proven never to reach this.
Having elaborated, I believe perhaps I have not been as explicit before about something which is not universally understood, but with which I am very familiar.
I just won the argument, because you can't answer that.
I (genuinely) hope the answer above helps. If not you, someone else.
This discussion is about solving chess.
True. You seem confused between that and confidently guessing the result of chess.
Your subjective and personal reticence, regarding committing yourself to any firm decision on the objective merits of random series of moves, means that your comments, however intrinsically accurate they may be, are inapplicable to this discussion.
I have to accept that the general point about inductive reasoning is beyond you. While that is not ideal, it can't be helped.
If you can't bring yourself to know that something like 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 loses for white, but you only think it so, then logically, you cannot bring yourself to fully accept that any random series of moves, no matter how ridiculous, ends in a definite, forced result with best play, without tracing all lines to the end.
I apply the same general truths about reasoning to everything. You are unaware of them so cannot do so.
It means that on your say-so, it would be impossible to cut down the myriad permutations of moves in chess, to leave only relevant (i.e. sensible) moves.
No. Try to keep up. This has already been clarified. The solution of checkers exemplifies that you can be selective for one side when verifying a strategy. It also exemplifies that you cannot be at all selective about the other one. No exceptions for positions where one side has two more kings or other flawed heuristics.
So we're left with the total number of permutations or variations, which is said to be over 10 ^100.
No, for multiple reasons. The first is that, assuming we are talking about basic chess, there are only ~10^44 positions. The second is the twice explained point above. Please try to understand it.
A so called "strong" solution is therefore necessary, to produce the foolishly named "ultra-weak" solution of whether chess is a draw or not, with best play.
No. Same mistake again. Seriously, you should stop making this mistake.
Such a full solution, consisting of tracing all the possible chess lines to their ultimate conclusion, seems impossible to achieve, by any means. It would certainly be impossible to store the results, using present or foreseeable technology.
First understand that a 32 piece tablebase is a strong solution, then understand that, as for checkers, a weak solution can be a lot smaller (just as for checkers).
I can only conclude that your refusal to understand the processes that need to be involved in solving chess is wilful. But it seems rather an extreme method of negating tygxc's claims and it makes you just as incorrect, wrt answering this, as he undoubtedly is. It was unnecessary and pedantic to make your detailed explanations, which were obvious, although inapplicable to the question of solving chess. It's an absolute necessity to be able to assess positions to eliminate lines that are irrelevant to "best play".
This is a useful heuristic that allows the selection of moves for one side in a strategy. This was how checkers was solved, assisted by a much smaller table-base than the full 24 piece one.
Please stop trying to get me to understand things. You're speaking to me as if I know nothing but you have a lot of catching up to do. I don't think it helps you having btickler arguing on "your side", parroting what you're saying, more or less. He's providing you with confirmation bias.
I don't mean that what you are saying is wrong but it misses the practicalities of solving chess. You will insist on explaining things like what a 32-man tablebase might be. I would say that is holding back your ability to keep up with me. I'm not btickler or one of the others, to whom you have to constantly explain things. I think you need to catch up with me because you are not addressing the practical difficulties involved in "solving chess". Just constantly skirting around them and, I would venture to say, hiding behind a pretence that there are things you need to explain to me.
If I don't understand something, I will ask.
Aug 26, 2022
0
#4252
I have never seen @btickler "parroting me". Your confusion may be due to our common respect for the state of authoritative knowledge.
If you have read the points in my previous post you can see who needs to catch up.
@4307
"First understand that a 32 piece tablebase is a strong solution, then understand that, as for checkers, a weak solution can be a lot smaller (just as for checkers)."
++ Very much indeed. Strongly solving chess requires all 10^44 legal positions.
Weakly solving chess requires far less: 10^17 positions.
Aug 26, 2022
0
#4254
Optimissed wrote:
It's a win. Understanding that is a product of chess knowledge, which doesn't entirely depend on ratings. After all, a bullet rating of 2700 may mean nothing except a person can move fast. Those who maintain it may not be a win have less and not more understanding. However, there will be positions, not unlike that one, where we cannot be sure. That isn't one of them. The probability of it being a win is 1 and the probability of that statement being correct is 1.
I'd like to see anyone refute the idea that 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 is a win for black. There's a point to that challenge.
Why is the probably of it being correct 1? There are many positions where a player can be down a piece and not losing (and saying that it's different because there's no compensation is not enough, because it assumes you, or someone knows every type of compensation)
Good
btickler wrote:
Kotshmot wrote:
Nah, come on. You said that one cannot be 100% sure a position is winning unless they can beat stockfish in the position.
What I'm saying is that its possible to prove that a position is winning with other means than beating stockfish or any other robot in the position.
I'm sure we agree now that I laid it out like this, but your comment wasn't in line with it.
No, I agreed with Mar that it would be a start for Optimissed to make his point.
Robot is an inaccurate term here.
Quoting you here:
"If you cannot win a position against *any* opposition put forth, then you cannot claim you are "100% sure" it is a winning position"
This is why we cant have nice things, cos you lie.
Kotshmot wrote:
Quoting you here:
"If you cannot win a position against *any* opposition put forth, then you cannot claim you are "100% sure" it is a winning position"
This is why we cant have nice things, cos you lie.
No, you misinterpret.
I was talking to Optimissed, who steadfastly refuses to engage in any logical solutions, and just wants to claim certainty via his own "knowledge". Since he refuses to use other methods, or even to acknowledge the terminology 
then *in his case* he needs to prove his "I'm 100% sure" statement in the only manner left to him.
Take your "cos you lie" comment and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. By that I mean Finland, of course.
Optimissed wrote:
Please stop trying to get me to understand things. You're speaking to me as if I know nothing but you have a lot of catching up to do. I don't think it helps you having btickler arguing on "your side", parroting what you're saying, more or less. He's providing you with confirmation bias.
I don't mean that what you are saying is wrong but it misses the practicalities of solving chess. You will insist on explaining things like what a 32-man tablebase might be. I would say that is holding back your ability to keep up with me. I'm not btickler or one of the others, to whom you have to constantly explain things. I think you need to catch up with me because you are not addressing the practical difficulties involved in "solving chess". Just constantly skirting around them and, I would venture to say, hiding behind a pretence that there are things you need to explain to me.
If I don't understand something, I will ask.
You're tripping the light fantastic again...
Elroch and I have completely different backgrounds, and there's no need for either of us to parrot anyone.
This is just an extension of your obsessive mindset about being the smartest person in the room. You always believe it is you (as your previous posts on this page can readily attest), and you similarly believe that everybody else also identifies who *they* think is the smartest person in the room and them blindly follows them. Nope, that's dysfunctional and something only deeply insecure people do (both by deciding that they have to be the smartest at all times, and in assuming everybody else acts the same way and is motivated by the same dysfunction).
Hello dimwit.
@4295
Your post is a heap of crap.
The scientific paper ranks all initial moves in figure 5 and figure 31.
Precisely. 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 is nowhere considered. The results are for practical play not perfect play.
Hence it is clear that considering 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, and 1 Nf3 as first moves is enough.
Are you saying that is a conclusion of the paper or your own?
That 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white is obvious. I even proved it is a forced checkmate in 82.
And to everyone else, even those without a degree in flower arranging, that's obviously not a proof. I proved that the starting position is a win for Black in 2 using your method.