Elroch wrote:
... "I have drawn 10 white balls from this urn, therefore the next ball I draw will be white"....
But only mathematicians draw balls from urns. Other people get their fingers covered in ashes or burnt by hot tea.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Sep 1, 2022
0
#4403
Nicoquelicots a écrit :
Good morning,
I have a question:
Let’s say that there is a better shot for the whites at the first shot (if there is one?) and that the blacks and whites then play each time the best shot possible, it implies that it could be the perfect part and therefore that if they repeat another part and they replay each time the best moves, that this second part should be similar to the first. For this it is necessary that the first blow of the whites is identical to the first part. But how to determine that the first blow of the whites is 100% the best blow that exists?
Isn’t it the best shot that exists according to the response of blacks to this first shot?
Sorry, I may have deviated from your discussion, but I’m interested in understanding the logic of the best shots from the very beginning of the game, since the rest of the time depends on those first shots and mainly on the first shot of the whites.
Have a good evening
Well, I see that my question is of no interest to anyone.
Hello the intelos egos who will still blablabla for 200 pages to know who is right! !
Good luck to all!
Sep 1, 2022
0
#4404
Optimissed wrote:
Not claiming certainty is not really meaningful.
It is, regardless of whether you understand that it is. And acknowledging uncertainty is crucial in the real world, where uncertainty is the norm. The question of the value of chess is an interesting case because (unlike much of the real world) it could hypothetically become certain - it is practical issues that make it uncertain (and likely to stay so for many years).
I explained to you why I thought that Alpha Zero is actually responding to its own programming.
AlphaZero is not programmed beyond the level of an imbecilic beginner playing entirely random legal moves. All its expertise is learnt.
When it gives a probability for 2. Ba6 as beng winning which is not actually unity, that doesn't mean that the position may not be winning for black.
Correct.
It's for the following reason.
The reason is that it cannot prove a specific result. Nothing more.
I tried to explain why and in what way AlphaZero is not programmed perfectly.
Again with that "programming". It is an AI, not a program.
The reason AlphaZero is imperfect is its finite (though large) size. The other limiting factor is the amount of learning, but this is not the limiting factor.
It's because it cannot be, in the same way that a human cannot fully analyse chess to a definite result. Now, the position after 2. Ba6 is not probably won for black. That's because, theoretically, it is either a definite forced win for black, a definite forced win for white, or a definite draw with best play by both sides.
It is wildly unlikely that the position is won for black. I will pedantically and correctly avoid making the mistake of claiming it is a solid fact, but you can feel safe to do so (the probability of being proven wrong is extremely low).
All AlphaXero is doing, when it gives that probability, is giving an estimation of its own error limits.
This is like claiming that Carlsen's statements about the value of different moves are "giving an estimation of [his] own error limits".
They ain't.
Sep 1, 2022
0
#4405
This forum is only about if Chess will ever be solved or not!Not about something else if you have a question to something else go in that forum and not in this one and stop writing nonsense which no one here cares about!!!
Sep 1, 2022
0
#4406
@Nicoquelicots
I didn't understand the connection between the line, "Isn’t it the best shot that exists..." and anything in the para., "Let’s say that there is a better shot for the whites at the first shot...", which is why you got no response from me. Probably the same for everybody else.
Perhaps you need to elaborate.
Nicoquelicots wrote:
Nicoquelicots a écrit :
Good morning,
I have a question:
Let’s say that there is a better shot for the whites at the first shot (if there is one?) and that the blacks and whites then play each time the best shot possible, it implies that it could be the perfect part and therefore that if they repeat another part and they replay each time the best moves, that this second part should be similar to the first. For this it is necessary that the first blow of the whites is identical to the first part. But how to determine that the first blow of the whites is 100% the best blow that exists?
Isn’t it the best shot that exists according to the response of blacks to this first shot?
Sorry, I may have deviated from your discussion, but I’m interested in understanding the logic of the best shots from the very beginning of the game, since the rest of the time depends on those first shots and mainly on the first shot of the whites.
Have a good evening
Well, I see that my question is of no interest to anyone.
Hello the intelos egos who will still blablabla for 200 pages to know who is right! !
Good luck to all!
Your English is probably difficult for some of them to understand. Generally the best moves at the beginning of a game are those which facilitate movement of your pieces and which control centre squares. The game is all about controlling squares and communication between pieces. As the game progresses, you can start to work out which squares you want to control more and which pieces need to be positioned better.
Hope that helps a little.
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Not claiming certainty is not really meaningful.
It is, regardless of whether you understand that it is. And acknowledging uncertainty is crucial in the real world, where uncertainty is the norm. The question of the value of chess is an interesting case because (unlike much of the real world) it could hypothetically become certain - it is practical issues that make it uncertain (and likely to stay so for many years).
I explained to you why I thought that Alpha Zero is actually responding to its own programming.
AlphaZero is not programmed beyond the level of an imbecilic beginner playing entirely random legal moves. All its expertise is learnt.
When it gives a probability for 2. Ba6 as beng winning which is not actually unity, that doesn't mean that the position may not be winning for black.
Correct.
It's for the following reason.
The reason is that it cannot prove a specific result. Nothing more.
I tried to explain why and in what way AlphaZero is not programmed perfectly.
Again with that "programming". It is an AI, not a program.
The reason AlphaZero is imperfect is its finite (though large) size. The other limiting factor is the amount of learning, but this is not the limiting factor.
It's because it cannot be, in the same way that a human cannot fully analyse chess to a definite result. Now, the position after 2. Ba6 is not probably won for black. That's because, theoretically, it is either a definite forced win for black, a definite forced win for white, or a definite draw with best play by both sides.
It is wildly unlikely that the position is won for black. I will pedantically and correctly avoid making the mistake of claiming it is a solid fact, but you can feel safe to do so (the probability of being proven wrong is extremely low).
All AlphaXero is doing, when it gives that probability, is giving an estimation of its own error limits.
This is like claiming that Carlsen's statements about the value of different moves are "giving an estimation of [his] own error limits".
They ain't.
Sometimes, I'm afraid I get the feeling that you don't know what you're talking about.
Is what you say understood by yourself due to inductive evidence? If so, how certain are you that you're correct?
The thing you wrote about Carlsen was largely correct and you used it as an analogy of bad thinking. You would benefit by quite a lot if you could learn to understand how others think. Particularly those who are cleverer than you are. 
I'll try to explain it. You're a statistician and therefore accustomed to dealing with sets of events in the "macro". Considering a unique event, you will tend to see its outcome "a" or outcome "b" probabalistically, since as a unique event but still an event which is viewed in the context of the set, superficially outcomes a or b follow probability patterns. Within the context of the set, viewing all the events as a whole, each unique event is simply part of this or that subset as part of a statistical pattern. That tells us nothing about the event itself.
An outcome on the chess board may be considered to have a definite result with best play: but it is one that may be unknown. All probabilities that are assigned to it are therefore the result of guesswork based on inductive reasoning. That is effectively equivalent to basing them on error limits.
Anyway, that's my thinking. You can't win an argument just by telling me that you're right.
You made a logical error in your paragraph beginning with It is wildly unlikely that the position is won for black.
You may wish to edit it. Personally, I don't believe there is any difference between the probabilities that the position is won for white and a draw. They are both probabilities of zero. I can't begin to guess why you assign them different probabilities. A bit like the other week, when Man City was winning by a massive number of goals with about a couple of minutes to play. The "probability forecaster" was still giving a probability of about 3 in ten thousand that it would be a draw and yet one in ten thousand that it would be a win for the other team. If you think about it, there's a reason why that is logically incorrect, as well as being wildly unlikely. Therefore the numbers were just there for show. A bit like my IQ really, which is so far out of the normal scale that the figure is meaningless, because the sample size is very small. When you have an IQ of only 31, like I do, it's completely meaningless.
Sep 1, 2022
0
#4410
Optimissed a écrit :
Nicoquelicots wrote:
Nicoquelicots a écrit :
Good morning,
I have a question:
Let’s say that there is a better shot for the whites at the first shot (if there is one?) and that the blacks and whites then play each time the best shot possible, it implies that it could be the perfect part and therefore that if they repeat another part and they replay each time the best moves, that this second part should be similar to the first. For this it is necessary that the first blow of the whites is identical to the first part. But how to determine that the first blow of the whites is 100% the best blow that exists?
Isn’t it the best shot that exists according to the response of blacks to this first shot?
Sorry, I may have deviated from your discussion, but I’m interested in understanding the logic of the best shots from the very beginning of the game, since the rest of the time depends on those first shots and mainly on the first shot of the whites.
Have a good evening
Well, I see that my question is of no interest to anyone.
Hello the intelos egos who will still blablabla for 200 pages to know who is right! !
Good luck to all!
Your English is probably difficult for some of them to understand. Generally the best moves at the beginning of a game are those which facilitate movement of your pieces and which control centre squares. The game is all about controlling squares and communication between pieces. As the game progresses, you can start to work out which squares you want to control more and which pieces need to be positioned better.
Hope that helps a little.
Thank you for your answer. I am not a native English speaker and I am doing my best.
I know that shots at the very beginning of a game are the most important to have the best control of the parts. But in all the theories I read in the messages of all of you, you never mention the first moves when it is precisely these that determine the whole sequence of a game. So, to go to the end of the playdoyer of all of you to know the perfect shots, I ask the question again:
"What is the perfect first blow, that is, that of the whites?"
And I think there is no perfect answer because the first shot of the whites can only be considered perfect after the first shot of the blacks, depending on what was played. It’s a bit like asking the question: who’s first, the chicken or the egg?
No?
Nicoquelicots wrote:
Optimissed a écrit :
Nicoquelicots wrote:
Nicoquelicots a écrit :
Good morning,
I have a question:
Let’s say that there is a better shot for the whites at the first shot (if there is one?) and that the blacks and whites then play each time the best shot possible, it implies that it could be the perfect part and therefore that if they repeat another part and they replay each time the best moves, that this second part should be similar to the first. For this it is necessary that the first blow of the whites is identical to the first part. But how to determine that the first blow of the whites is 100% the best blow that exists?
Isn’t it the best shot that exists according to the response of blacks to this first shot?
Sorry, I may have deviated from your discussion, but I’m interested in understanding the logic of the best shots from the very beginning of the game, since the rest of the time depends on those first shots and mainly on the first shot of the whites.
Have a good evening
Well, I see that my question is of no interest to anyone.
Hello the intelos egos who will still blablabla for 200 pages to know who is right! !
Good luck to all!
Your English is probably difficult for some of them to understand. Generally the best moves at the beginning of a game are those which facilitate movement of your pieces and which control centre squares. The game is all about controlling squares and communication between pieces. As the game progresses, you can start to work out which squares you want to control more and which pieces need to be positioned better.
Hope that helps a little.
Thank you for your answer. I am not a native English speaker and I am doing my best.
I know that shots at the very beginning of a game are the most important to have the best control of the parts. But in all the theories I read in the messages of all of you, you never mention the first moves when it is precisely these that determine the whole sequence of a game. So, to go to the end of the playdoyer of all of you to know the perfect shots, I ask the question again:
"What is the perfect first blow, that is, that of the whites?"
And I think there is no perfect answer because the first shot of the whites can only be considered perfect after the first shot of the blacks, depending on what was played. It’s a bit like asking the question: who’s first, the chicken or the egg?
No?
Thankyou very much for your answer.
I know that there's something in what you are saying. I personally completely agree with you. There is no "best move". However, there are some moves which may be less helpful than others, such as, perhaps, 1. Na6.
Sep 1, 2022
0
#4412
Because on the contrary, if there is really a perfect blow of the whites from the first shot, it would mean that if we could find all the perfect shots, also from the first blow of the blacks. We could then invariably play the same game, with 100% success for whites or losers, since their first shot is perfect. I hope that we will never arrive at this hypothesis because the game of chess would no longer have any interest.
The more we evolve, the more there is of no one, voluntary or not. And frankly, losers are even more frustrating than victories or defeats!
Sep 1, 2022
0
#4413
Sorry, the translation was wrong. I said:
Already the more we evolve, the more there are draw matches, voluntary or not. And frankly, a draw is even more frustrating than a win or a loss!
Yes that's what I thought you must mean. I had to go out so I didn't reply right away. However, some of the most enjoyable games I have played have ended as draws!
Look at this one, for instance. At some stage in the middle game, I went badly wrong. I'm sure I should have won it after sacrificing the exchange. I didn't control the diagonal soon enough because I thought he could draw. So I went in for some complications and very nearly lost.
In this one, against the same person, exactly similar. Here I played instinctively, without looking at reference books very deeply. It's a very unusual variation of the Budapest Gambit and when I analysed it with the help of the analysis engine later, it was clear that I didn't take the best route in the opening. I kept pushing but couldn't quite win. The engine gave him an accuracy rating of about 99% and me a little less, like 98%. When I had the black pieces he won one and I won one. Both were played last year and were Daily 3-Day.
MARattigan wrote:
You should have lost from the last position shown. Why the draw?
I had worked out that if he advanced his pawn one square, which he did, it was drawn. So it was drawn in the final position. Previously to the blunder, he was winning.
Maybe his best chance was to give me the a pawn and hope I blundered in a more open position, where he isn't tied down to defending hs pawn.
@4465
"What is the perfect first blow, that is, that of the whites?"
++ So you want to know which white starting move is best.
'From the outset two moves, 1.e4 or 1.d4, open up lines for the Queen and a Bishop. Therefore, theoretically one of these two moves must be the best, as no other first move accomplishes so much.' - Capablanca
AlphaZero corroborates that with no other input but the Laws of Chess: Figure 5 and Figure 31
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2111.09259.pdf
Also 1 c4 and 1 Nf3 merit attention.
Those are the 4 best moves, so solving chess can restrict itself to those 4.
If the 4 best moves cannot win for white, then the 16 worse moves cannot win either.
The word is "refuted". Falsification is different. Falsification is all about the theoretical possibility that something can be refuted. If something cannot be falsified, that means that something isn't based on scientific evidence. Therefore there's no reason to believe that it's true in any case, so it doesn't need to be disproven.
The belief that 2. Ba6 doesn't necessarily lose isn't based on any evidence and therefore it can be discounted. That's because assumptions work both ways and these people calling those who are sure it loses "incorrect" are therefore incorrect themselves. This discussion shouldn't be happening, because the assumption that we cannot tell that Ba6 loses is only based on indirect evidence, perhaps that "something else" may not lose although we think it does.
Basically, Elroch is criticising us for using inductive evidence but his evidence is equally inductive. So he loses.
Actually, I am not criticising anyone for using inductive evidence. The problem is incompetent use of it, directly analogous to the reasoning "I have drawn 10 white balls from this urn, therefore the next ball I draw will be white". Also, when I use inductive reasoning, I don't disguise it, nor do I ever claim certainty. Certainty arises from deductive reasoning (such as the mathematics of Bayesian probability. Theorems are applied and conclusions follow.
Anyone who still has fully functioning cognition should be able to follow the following consideration of what can be achieved with inductive reasoning:
Suppose we want to conclude that the position 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bh6 is winning for white. We start from the time when we have just learnt the rules of chess by have no knowledge of the game. (Anyone who thinks that at this point we have certain knowledge that the position is a loss for white is clearly delusional, so I hope we can agree that at this point the value of the position is uncertain, i.e. has a probability strictly between 0 and 1 of being a win for white). Take this time to be when chess had just been invented, if you like.
From that point we (the human species, assisted by computers) acquire evidence. This comes in units which we will break down right to the position level - empirical data about what happens in chess games.
At every step in the long path to wisdom by experience we start with a state of belief about whether the opening position is a win or not. This is quantified as a Bayesian probability - a state of belief. After an element of evidence, we have another state of belief about the proposition, quantified as another probability.
The issue is that those who believe we can be genuinely certain about the result of 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bh6 are obliged to say that at some time, the observation of a single new position - eg the end of a game with a result - caused an uncertain belief about the proposition to change to a certain one.
This is absurd except in one single case - when the last position completed a deductive proof that the result of the position is a win (just like the final step in the proof of the result of checkers, or the step that adds a new position to a tablebase, with a certain result (by all of the positions reachable from it in one move also being in the tablebase).
The idea that one elementary piece of inductive evidence could otherwise justify a change from uncertainty to certainty is misguided and simply wrong.
Of course, I understand that the likes of @tygx will simply ignore this truth and go on as before - the ability to improve understanding can be too limited.
[Note, this description is also a close approximation to the way an AI learns chess. At each point in time it has a model with millions of parameters and it revises those parameters based on any mismatch between its probabilistic model and experience.
It would be possible to repeat the development of AlphaZero with all games starting from the position after 1. d4 Nf6 2. Bh6. This would generate a chess player able to play both sides of this position better than anyone else on the planet. This player would still never be certain about the result of the position of interest (barring issues with machine precision).]
Not claiming certainty is not really meaningful. It's self-protection in a lot of cases, where we actually can be certain of something, due to inductive evidence.
I explained to you why I thought that Alpha Zero is actually responding to its own programming. When it gives a probability for 2. Ba6 as beng winning which is not actually unity, that doesn't mean that the position may not be winning for black. It's for the following reason.
I tried to explain why and in what way AlphaZero is not programmed perfectly. It's because it cannot be, in the same way that a human cannot fully analyse chess to a definite result. Now, the position after 2. Ba6 is not probably won for black. That's because, theoretically, it is either a definite forced win for black, a definite forced win for white, or a definite draw with best play by both sides.
All AlphaXero is doing, when it gives that probability, is giving an estimation of its own error limits.