I think @Elroch is probably finding that his arithmetic suffers a similar problem to my problem with Stockfish.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
@6134
"how do apply your calculation to determine the game theoretic value"
++ You are confused.
The KRPP vs. KR drawn positions serve to check the thesis that the table base correct move is among the top 4 engine moves for the 10^9 positions/s engine running for 17 s with 1 error in 10^20 positions. As shown in these 6 examples the top 1 engine move is table base exact.
The game-theoretic value of a draw is determined from the 1469 ICCF WC games, that is the closest to perfect play we have: 1104 of those games are with optimal play from both sides.
The game-theoretic value of a draw also follows from a deductive argument. To win you need to queen a pawn, i.e. you need an advantage of 1 pawn or more. 3 tempi in the initial position are worth 1 pawn. 1 tempo in the initial position is not enough to win. You cannot queen a tempo.
"It doesn't contradict it."
++ Yes, that is right. You suggested some 7-men endgame might contradict it, but none did.
"You claim it's generally true" ++ Yes, for positions relevant to weakly solving Chess.
"you would need rather a lot of confirmatory examples to sustain the conjecture"
++ The thesis was extrapolated from the AlphaZero paper. That is what lends it credibility.
"you need only one counterexample to discredit it"
++ Yes: 'No number of experiments can prove me right, one can prove me wrong' - Einstein
"you'll find among the games I spent so much time preparing"
++ The 2 I posted did not contradict.
The KNN vs. KP is irrelevant: 5 men, not 7, not a draw, a known anomaly: an engine can only detect the checkmate if its calculation depth exceeds the distance to mate otherwise the engine is happy to win the pawn increasing its perceived advantage from +5 to +6, but spoiling the win.
Oct 14, 2022
0
#4684
Optimissed wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@6119
"Like Sveshnikov, Kasparov is 100% reliable."
++ Kasparov was proven wrong and I have proven Sveshnikov right:
Chess can be weakly solved in 5 years.
Chess players are more reliable when they speak of Chess than when they speak of themselves.
Speaking of yourself, apparently you don't know what a proof is. You come over, more and more, like an obsessive 11 year old of average ability, with too much self-confidence, who still believes in Father Christmas.
Wait, hold on. You have proof that Father Christmas is a fake? What’s next, Bigfoot isn’t really a big blurry monster roaming the forest? 😉
Oct 14, 2022
0
#4685
mikekalish wrote:
I'm still following.....fascinated....intrigued....in awe. Epic debate and I don't know who's right, if anyone....although I find myself leaning one way or another occasionally.
I’m in agreement with you Mike.
Oct 14, 2022
0
#4686
tygxc wrote:
@6134
[Deleted text reinserted: You don't say what think time was used. You've produced one game for each position -]"how do apply your calculation to determine the game theoretic value"
++ You are confused.
You do your best in that respect.
The game-theoretic value of a draw is determined from the 1469 ICCF WC games, that is the closest to perfect play we have: 1104 of those games are with optimal play from both sides.
Really? I think some of the examples I posted are demonstrably perfect play by both sides. Why don't you check?
The game-theoretic value of a draw also follows from a deductive argument. To win you need to queen a pawn, i.e. you need an advantage of 1 pawn or more. 3 tempi in the initial position are worth 1 pawn. 1 tempo in the initial position is not enough to win. You cannot queen a tempo.
To complete your deductive argument you still need to decide if 3 tempi are worth 1 pawn by weight or volume. You haven't settled that yet.
"It doesn't contradict it."
++ Yes, that is right. You suggested some 7-men endgame might contradict it, but none did.
Only because you haven't got round to checking yet.
"You claim it's generally true" ++ Yes, for positions relevant to weakly solving Chess.
What about positions relevant to checking if it's true?
"you would need rather a lot of confirmatory examples to sustain the conjecture"
++ The thesis was extrapolated from the AlphaZero paper. That is what lends it credibility.
That rather depends on whether your method of extrapolation is correct. Why don't you check and find out. I've provided you with 37 games where, unlike the games in the AlphaZero paper, you have perfect information.
"you need only one counterexample to discredit it"
++ Yes: 'No number of experiments can prove me right, one can prove me wrong' - Einstein
Exactly.
"you'll find among the games I spent so much time preparing"
++ The 2 I posted did not contradict.
I don't think they were among the games I spent so much time preparing, but I think you'll find several there too.
More to the point I think Einstein would probably have been able to find at least one that did contradict.
The KNN vs. KP is irrelevant: 5 men, not 7, not a draw, a known anomaly: an engine can only detect the checkmate if its calculation depth exceeds the distance to mate otherwise the engine is happy to win the pawn increasing its perceived advantage from +5 to +6, but spoiling the win.
It fails on that one in particular. That makes it relevant to verifying if your calculation holds water.
You claim your calculation can determine if the starting position is a win or a draw, so saying that positions that are not draws are irrelevant to checking its correctness makes no sense. Since it also doesn't refer to the number of men neither does saying it has 5 men not 7. (The starting position in your 1469 ICCF WC games probably didn't have 7 men either.)
I invited you here to "Show it or shut it". You have done neither so far. Do you plan to?
And you're still chopping out bits of the post you respond to to alter the context.
Extremely interesting, thanks!
Wits-end wrote:
mikekalish wrote:
I'm still following.....fascinated....intrigued....in awe. Epic debate and I don't know who's right, if anyone....although I find myself leaning one way or another occasionally.
I’m in agreement with you Mike.
That might be the first time in 6140 posts that two people have agreed on anything here. 
Oct 14, 2022
0
#4689
tygxc wrote:
@6129
"where the 50 move rule prevents a win"
++ The 50-moves rule plays no role in weakly solving chess.
A weak solution of Chess without the 50-moves rule is also a solution of Chess with the 50-moves rule. In none of the perfect games we have was the 50 moves rule invoked.
There is a weak solution of Chess without the 50-moves rule that is also a solution of Chess with the 50-moves rule. You have not presented a method that will arrive at one.
It's certainly not true that any weak solution of Chess without the 50-moves rule is also a solution of Chess with the 50-moves rule.
You've so far produced only vague suggestions of a method that will arrive at neither (for logical reasons, not just because it won't be finished by teatime).
@6144
"There is a weak solution of Chess without the 50-moves rule that is also a solution of Chess with the 50-moves rule." ++ Yes indeed.
"a method that will arrive at one"
++ I have presented a method that arrives at both at the same time.
Start from a drawn ICCF WC game, e.g. this one.
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164320
It starts from the initial position and ends in a perpetual check i.e. a 3-fold repetition draw.
Analyse 3 alternatives for 71 Kh3. Do they draw too?
Analyse 3 alternatives for 70 Kg2. Do they draw too?
Analyse 3 alternatives for 69 Kh3. Do they draw too?
Analyse 3 alternatives for 68 Kh2. Do they draw too?
Continue like that until you meet another ICCF WC draw.
Then treat the other ICCF WC draws in the same way.
Then there is a strategy that draws for black gainst any white opposition and chess is weakly solved, with or without the 50-moves rule.
Oct 14, 2022
0
#4691
tygxc wrote:
The game-theoretic value of a draw also follows from a deductive argument. To win you need to queen a pawn, i.e. you need an advantage of 1 pawn or more. 3 tempi in the initial position are worth 1 pawn. 1 tempo in the initial position is not enough to win. You cannot queen a tempo.
Prize competition
Find as many errors as possible in the quoted text.
The one who finds the most will receive a magnificent trophy.
Oct 14, 2022
0
#4692
tygxc wrote:
@6144
"There is a weak solution of Chess without the 50-moves rule that is also a solution of Chess with the 50-moves rule." ++ Yes indeed.
"a method that will arrive at one"
++ I have presented a method that arrives at both at the same time.
Start from a drawn ICCF WC game, e.g. this one.
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164320
It starts from the initial position and ends in a perpetual check i.e. a 3-fold repetition draw.
Analyse 3 alternatives for 71 Kh3. Do they draw too?
Analyse 3 alternatives for 70 Kg2. Do they draw too?
Analyse 3 alternatives for 69 Kh3. Do they draw too?
Analyse 3 alternatives for 68 Kh2. Do they draw too?
Continue like that until you meet another ICCF WC draw.
Then treat the other ICCF WC draws in the same way.
Then there is a strategy that draws for black gainst any white opposition and chess is weakly solved, with or without the 50-moves rule.
OK I start with your game (which didn't end in a triple repetition) and follow your pseudocode..
The events in the game were
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 O-O 5.Bd3 d5 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 dxc4 8.Bxc4 c5 9.Nf3 Qc7 10.Be2 b6 11.O-O Bb7 12.Bb2 Nc6 13.c4 Rfd8 14.Rc1 Rac8 15.Re1 Ne7 16.Ne5 Ng6 17.Nd3 h6 18.Bf1 Qe7 19.Qe2 Rd7 20.dxc5 Be4 21.Rcd1 Bxd3 22.Rxd3 Rxd3 23.Qxd3 Qxc5 24.Qd4 Qc6 25.Rd1 Nf8 26.Be2 N8d7 27.h3 Qc7 28.Qd3 Nc5 29.Qc2 Rd8 30.Rd4 Rd7 31.Bf3 Rd8 32.h4 Rd7 33.Qd1 Ne8 34.h5 Nf6 35.g3 Qc8 36.Kg2 Qc7 37.Bc3 Ne8 38.Qb1 Nd6 39.Rg4 f5 40.Rd4 Nde4 41.Bb4 Nf6 42.Qd1 e5 43.Rxd7 Qxd7 44.Bd5+ Nxd5 45.cxd5 Ne4 46.d6 Qc6 47.Kg1 Nf6 48.a4 Kh7 49.Ba3 Nd7 50.Bb2 Qc4 51.f4 e4 52.Be5 a6 53.Bd4 Qd5 54.Qe2 b5 55.axb5 axb5 56.Qb2 Qxd6 57.Qxb5 Qe6 58.Kg2 Kh8 59.Kh3 Kg8 60.Qa5 Kh7 61.Qb5 Kh8 62.Qb4 Qa6 63.Bxg7+ Kxg7 64.Qe7+ Kg8 65.Qxd7 Qf1+ 66.Kh2 Qf2+ 67.Kh3 Qf1+ 68.Kh2 Qe2+ 69.Kh3 Qxh5+ 70.Kg2 Qe2+ 71.Kh3 Qg4+ Draw agreed
Now I take 71.Kh3 and look for the subroutine "Analyse 3 alternatives". No show. Does not compute.
Could do better.
You say "Then there is a strategy that draws for black gainst any white opposition".
There may be. I don't know and neither do you.
What's definitely true is your pseudocode doesn't output one.
If I'm playing Black, what does it tell me to play against 1.a4?
Back to the validity of your basic calculation, I invited you here to "Show it or shut it". You have done neither so far. Do you plan to?
Oct 14, 2022
0
#4693
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
tygxc wrote:
The game-theoretic value of a draw also follows from a deductive argument wrong. To win you need to queen a pawn wrong, i.e. you need an advantage of 1 pawn or more wrong. 3 tempi in the initial position are worth 1 pawn. 1 tempo in the initial position is not enough to win. You cannot queen a tempo.
Prize competition
Find as many errors as possible in the quoted text.
The one who finds the most will receive a magnificent trophy.
There are only three obvious errors. I would say that the rest of it's ok but not, of course, as part of a deductive argiment. There were 3 logical errors.
You first "wrong" is not necessarily valid. The conclusion is merely unproven. If, as you appear to "know", chess happens to be a draw (whichever version) then that would certainly follow from a deductive argument (though not from the rest of what @tygxc posts). It could be rather a long deductive argument.
Oct 14, 2022
0
#4694
I'm accepting the first one as it clearly referred to a purported following deductive argument. Of course nothing that could be mistaken for a deductive argument by a sleeping blind man followed.
Optimissed wrote:
1) If all experience leads us to accept something as true then is is true.
2) All experience in chess leads us to accept that chess is a draw with best play by both sides.
3) Therefore chess is a draw etc.
That's a valid, deductive argument, one of the premises of which is untrue. It's still valid but it's incorrect as a deductive argument because we cannot support (1).
This is an excellent and logically unassailable argument against players that "know" chess is a forced draw 
. Kudos.
Oct 14, 2022
0
#4696
I like the fact that the last time @tygxc mentioned a "deductive argument" he immediately moved on to blatantly inductive imprecise ideas such as those about the value of tempos, as if they were axioms.
[Isn't your post about his argument, not MAR's?]
Oct 14, 2022
0
#4697
Optimissed wrote:
OK we could do this:
1) If all experience leads us to accept something as true then is is true.
2) All experience in chess leads us to accept that chess is a draw with best play by both sides.
3) Therefore chess is a draw etc.
That's a valid, deductive argument, one of the premises of which is untrue. It's still valid but it's incorrect as a deductive argument because we cannot support (1).
Or (2).
We have no experience of chess with best play by both sides from the starting position, so no reason to accept any particular result from experience.
Argument's OK (for once).
Oct 14, 2022
0
#4698
It wouldn't have been called the North pole if it was in Timbuctu. (Or more correctly Timbuctu would have been to the North if that was where it was.)
@6133
"that is: 8.5 * 10^17 seconds, about 280 billion years."
++ You are not good at arithmetic. There are only 10^17 positions relevant. The engine calculates a billion positions per second. That means 3 engines exhaust the 10^17 positions in 5 years.