@5613
"They add up to greater confidence"
++ Death sentences have been based on 99% probability of matching DNA samples.
"a tiny sample of games" ++ Over 1000 ICCF WC Finals draws.
"by imperfect players" ++ The argument shows > 99% of the ICCF WC draws to be perfect play
"leads to a deduction that chess is a draw" ++ It is the only way to explain the observed data
"what deduction is" ++ The deductive argument is argument 6.
@5592
++ The good assistants only occasionally intervene and only if they are sure.
Isn't it possible to be sure and wrong at the same time?
@5608
"come to the conclusion that chess is a draw"
++ I gave not one but 6 arguments. At least taken together this evidence
compells the mind to accept the fact that chess is a draw as true.
Argument 5 needs understanding of probability.
Argument 6 is deductive.
Even if your evidence compels my mind to accept that chess is a draw.....is this what you believe "solvable" means...... convincing by compelling evidence? To me, solving chess means 100%, not >99%. There is a huge difference between those two, even if 99% is enough for most things. I feel pretty good if there's a 99% chance I'll survive my surgery, but it's far from being sure. But solving chess (or checkers) means removing the last scintilla of doubt....at least that's what it means to me....that we're no longer dealing in probabilities or statistics, but that we have a move for EVERY possible position that would guarantee a path to a draw.....with 100% certainty.....not >99%.
@5616
"Isn't it possible to be sure and wrong at the same time?"
++ That is why the assistants need to be good.
That is why they need to be (ICCF) (grand)masters.
If they are not 100% sure that they are not wrong, then they should let the engine analyse on.
@5596
"how can us humans say a move is a blunder"
++ We have ample evidence that chess is a draw. Thus each decisive game must contain an odd number of mistakes, at least 1. By inspection it is possible to identify at least 1 mistake.
Only if you define a mistake as a result-changing error. Others might call that a blunder.
Almost all others.
We need a tygxc-normal dictionary.
Some entries:
know...guess
solve....guess
perfect player...Stockfish
perfect play...draw a winning KPvK position
legal position....position in KRPP v KRP
illegal position....legal position with ply count > 0
calculation...method for arriving at ludicrous figures
order of magnitude...add 10 (or subtract if you think no one will notice)
proof...what I tell you three times
blasphemy...verification of calculation (see above)
inspection ..... three GMs with umbrellas raised, staring into a goldfish bowl and wondering where the fish went. (courtesy @Optimissed.)
right...wrong (courtesy @tygxc)
deduction...first daft thing that springs into @tygxc's head. (courtesy @Optimissed.)
Uturn...carry on in the wrong direction in the face of all evidence (courtesy of @NervesofButter)
... further entries invited.
@5620
"Even if your evidence compels my mind to accept that chess is a draw.....
is this what you believe "solvable" means...... convincing by compelling evidence?"
++ 'ultra-weakly solved means
that the game-theoretic value of the initial position has been determined'
determine = to fix conclusively or authoritatively - Webster
To me Chess is ultra-weakly solved to be a draw, 100% sure though not yet formally proven.
'weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition'
This thus means to determine how black can draw against any tries by white to win.
The best strategy so far is to follow an ICCF WC Finals drawn game as long as possible.
"To me, solving chess means 100%, not >99%."
++ Do not confuse the weak solution of Chess and arguments about it.
We have 1469 ICCF WC Finals games, 1177 of which are draws and 1104 of which are perfect games with optimal play from both sides. We do not know which of the 1177 are the 1104 perfect games and which 73 contain 2 errors that undo each other, mostly from earlier years.
"solving chess (or checkers) means removing the last scintilla of doubt"
++ Checkers was solved with only 19 of the 300 possible openings.
Connect Four was solved with only 9 knowledge rules.
"we're no longer dealing in probabilities or statistics"
++ Weakly solving Chess is determining how to draw as black.
The statistics are only used in arguments about it e.g. to show that for 32 to 7 men the table base exact move is among the top 4 engine moves if the billion positions/s engine runs for 17 s (or a desktop runs for 4.7 h) with 1 error in 10^20 positions > the number of 10^17 relevant positions.
"that we have a move for EVERY possible position that would guarantee a path to a draw"
++ Yes. That path can be a series of moves, but also a more general strategy.
E.g. after 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? it is 100% sure that white loses (it is checkmate in 82),
but we do not need a whole tree to prove that.
A more general strategy: trade pieces, create a passed pawn, queen it, checkmate is enough.
@5608
"come to the conclusion that chess is a draw"
++ I gave not one but 6 arguments. ...
My mother always used to tell me, "six wrongs don't make a right".
@5628
"six wrongs don't make a right"
++ But six rights leave no doubt.
...billion/s engine runs for 17 s (or a desktop runs for 4.7 h) with 1 error in 10^20 positions ...
Funny you should mention that.
No show yet for your calculation of the theoretical result and error rates in my games here. Are you still working on it?
Once you've done that we can stop discussing your proposal.
It doesn't work.
You don't have to wait for my KRPPvKRP runs. Your calculation should work for any material.
@5616
"Isn't it possible to be sure and wrong at the same time?"
++ That is why the assistants need to be good.
That is why they need to be (ICCF) (grand)masters.
If they are not 100% sure that they are not wrong, then they should let the engine analyse on.
These responses are less than compelling to my mind. Relying on humans to be "good" just doesn't seem to fit with what you're trying to prove.
@5628
"six wrongs don't make a right"
++ But six rights leave no doubt.
OK. I've added it to my dictionary.
@5628
"six wrongs don't make a right"
++ But six rights leave no doubt.
"Little doubt".....sure. "No doubt"......troublesome.
@5632
"Relying on humans to be "good" just doesn't seem to fit with what you're trying to prove."
++ Here is an example. https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164259
The 2 ICCF grandmasters agree to a draw as neither side can win.
An engine might continue a long time before reaching a 3-fold repetition in all variations.
... I believe tygxc needs to adjust his wording to reflect that difference, particularly regarding the proper meaning of deduction. ...
Good point. I'll add it to my dictionary.
We're witnessing a clash between the old way of "doing science" and the new. Although my heart is with the older way, I believe tygxc needs to adjust his wording to reflect that difference, particularly regarding the proper meaning of deduction. Then all should be well.
No, we are not.
Solving a game is not science. It is basically a maths problem associated with the theory of combinatorial games. It is of course of very minor interest to the theoretical subject which concerns itself with general results, but is of interest because of the historical status of the game itself (and as a motivation to develop efficient procedures to do such things).
By contrast, the four colour theorem is natural and fundamental, involving no arbitrary set of parameters (such as the rules of chess), and the same is true of many general theorems of combinatorial game theory.
The task that can be achieved by a "scientific" approach (i.e. inductive reasoning from empirical information) is a different one. Specifically, you can arrive at results that are uncertain (eg according to model M, there is a high probability that the optimal result is R) and approximate (eg strategy S probably loses very rarely), by contrast with a type of mathematical proposition that is certain and precise, achieved by rigorous deduction.
@5632
"Relying on humans to be "good" just doesn't seem to fit with what you're trying to prove."
++ Here is an example. https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164259
The 2 ICCF grandmasters agree to a draw as neither side can win.
i.e. Neither grandmaster with strictly limited lookahead capability can win.
An engine might continue a long time before reaching a 3-fold repetition in all variations.
When you still wouldn't know what the theoretical result was.
Er, talking about engines, have you overlooked my final comments in this post, by the way?
@5628
"six wrongs don't make a right"
++ But six rights leave no doubt.
No, 6 individually inadequate pieces of evidence leave no doubt in the mind of someone unequipped to deal with uncertainty correctly. Such as you.
They entirely fail to do this for anyone who knows what solving a game is.
Gli scacchi sono una palestra di compassione. Io non so esprimere la frustrazione che provo quando perdo la regina o la partita per una svista (ma non abbandono MAI), mi sento umiliato, immagino l'altro che ride di me. Quando invece la perde il mio avversario mi sento magnanimo e sportivo. Ma non è vero. Fino a che provo quella sofferenza significa che sotto sotto vincere mi dà un grande piacere prevaricatorio. Quando sarò in grado di vincere senza godere... Sarò in grado di perdere senza soffrire. È lo sport. Dove accade troppo spesso che l'amore per il gioco cede il passo al desiderio di battere l'avversario.