@Optimissed re:
That is a ludicrous misrepresentation.
Certainly what @tygxc says at any rate. In your case it should be "let's change the meaning of solve, and then we can still say we can't solve it".
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
MARattigan wrote:
Certainly what @tygxc says at any rate. In your case it shoud be "let's change the meaning of solve, and then we can say we can't solve it".
Chess is solved in the sense that we know it's drawn. However, the real meaning of "solution", which we're discussing here, is an analysis of the entire set of meaningful chess lines.
For some reason I'm not sure of, there's a lot of emphasis here on "the best moves against any opposition". That is true in a sense. It should go without saying that the strongest moves have to be analysed thoroughly but there has to come a point where chess lines that are effectively random and losing can be recognised as that, rather than pursuing all variants of such lines to their bitter end. There should be no need for that and indeed, random moves aren't chess. Unexpectedly good moves are chess and algorithms are needed to prune the search tree, to cut off all the unnecessary stuff. It's at this point that you are getting yourselves tied up in knots, because it's known that existing algorithms are not fully reliable. tygxc thinks they're reliable and much of this conversation is an entirely pointless and unproductive repetition of arguments that shouldn't be required.. Unfortunately, there are some people who enjoy going round and round in circles and others who seem to enjoy complaining about it.
Most of the people who do join these conversations, who actually understand what's being discussed, give up in disgust.
Sep 21, 2022
0
#5044
Well you still haven't shown us your win as Black against SF after 1.e4 e5 2.Ba6. Why don't you do that first before continuing to post that you can tell what lines are random and losing.
It would give you some credibility.
If you could do it against something that can mate with a rook and king against a lone king that would be even better, but let's see how you do against SF first.
MARattigan wrote:
Well you still haven't shown us your win as Black against SF after 1.e4 e5 2.Ba6. Why don't you do that first before continuing to post that you can tell what lines are random and losing.
It would give you some credibility.
If you could do it against something that can mate with a rook and king against a lone king that would be even better, but let's see how you do against SF first.
No-one needs credibility with a troll and anyone who can't work out that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 definitely loses for white basically doesn't have the chess or logical ability to comment here. It isn't a grey area. It loses and one doesn't need to prove it, although tygxc claims it's been proven.
To put you straight, there are grey areas where a proof is needed but that isn't one of them, since saying it might not lose is just as silly as saying 1. e4 might lose by force. I used that argument with Elroch and I think he made some inept comment which I didn't bother to read. I'll read it now but my argument by a comparison with an inverse case is perfectly good. Obviously it's opinion but if so then so is the opinion that 1. e4 doesn't lose by force.
Until you solve chess, that argument obviously holds.
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
tygxc wrote:
...
Solve chess without the 50-moves rule.
Then that same solution also applies with the 50-moves rule.
Only if you're a moron.
But the topic our foregoing exchanges was whether the tablebases strongly solve positions with 7 men or less. You seem to be trying to change it.
I tend to think that tygxc is right on that one. At some point too, it's necessary to relax the emphasis on deductive reasoning. As I pointed out to Elroch, you can't solve chess without the mind of a scientist and for all the riduculous stuff about five years, tygxc still thinks more like a scientist than most of the others. A scientist with an unfortunate obsession, maybe, like Benny Hill in The Italian Job. Of course, I doubt Elroch believes me but nevertheless, with a mindset in which we can't know if 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses for white, science isn't being allowed to play a part. It's as though he and others have never heard of successive approximations and closing in on an accurate result incrementally. No, for them it's got to be all worked out deductively. That's rubbish.
Let's be clear here. This is not an objective disagreement (the interesting kind). It is a worthless semantic disagreement. "Worthless" because if you avoid using the same word for two different things, there is no disagreement. Those who contribute to the peer-reviewed literature say chess is too complex to solve. You and @tygxc say "no, let's change the meaning of solve, and then we can say we can solve it". Using the same word for two different things and then failing to acknowledge you are doing this is obfuscation, and its only contribution to objective knowledge is to make it more difficult to communicate about it.
A concrete example is 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6. Regarding the weak solution of chess (same meaning as the entire peer-reviewed literature), this is an unproven case requiring proof if this position can be reached from either of the two candidate strategies.
All of us agree it is very likely a win for white. Some don't understand that it be an excellent bet - maybe one you could stake your life on - but not epistemiologically justifying certainty. They erroneously think that induction from the tiny amount of existing chess praxis by flawed humans and engine including, say, an evaluation of 500 centipawns (like many positions that are not won) and a LeelaZero evaluation of 99.8% (or whatever it is) is enough to be certain. No, it ain't. Maybe you could stake your like on it, but staking your life on 10^20 such examples all being correct would be suicidal.
This is Elroch's effort. The same thing again about 10^20 "such examples". We're not talking about 10^20 "such examples", Elroch ... we're talking about that specific example, so who is currently living in fantasy land? Do you think that 1. d4 might lose by force? You'd really be forced to think that, if you think 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 might not lose.
@5451
"Those who contribute to the peer-reviewed literature say chess is too complex to solve."
++ I adhere to the peer-reviewed literature and say humans and computers can weakly solve in 5 years. Peer-reviewed literature accepts the use of knowledge. Peer-reviewed literature accepts brute force as well as rule based strategies, so accepts acombination of both as well.
Clear win / loss / draw is adjudicated by the humans based on rules like Allis' solution of Connect Four. Unclear positions are calculated by brute force until a table base, or a prior 3-fold repetition, or a clear draw / win / loss that humans can adjudicate based on rules.
You say "no, let's change the meaning of solve, and find ways to make it harder to solve and then we can say we cannot solve it". I say it can be solved with 10^17 relevant positions. You say "no, let's find arguments to make that figure higher" I use thought to reduce the number to 10^17. You use thought to increase the number.
"A concrete example is 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6. Regarding the weak solution of chess (same meaning as the entire peer-reviewed literature), this is an unproven case"
Sep 22, 2022
0
#5057
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
tygxc wrote:
...
Solve chess without the 50-moves rule.
Then that same solution also applies with the 50-moves rule.
Only if you're a moron.
But the topic our foregoing exchanges was whether the tablebases strongly solve positions with 7 men or less. You seem to be trying to change it.
I tend to think that tygxc is right on that one. At some point too, it's necessary to relax the emphasis on deductive reasoning. As I pointed out to Elroch, you can't solve chess without the mind of a scientist and for all the riduculous stuff about five years, tygxc still thinks more like a scientist than most of the others. A scientist with an unfortunate obsession, maybe, like Benny Hill in The Italian Job. Of course, I doubt Elroch believes me but nevertheless, with a mindset in which we can't know if 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses for white, science isn't being allowed to play a part. It's as though he and others have never heard of successive approximations and closing in on an accurate result incrementally. No, for them it's got to be all worked out deductively. That's rubbish.
Let's be clear here. This is not an objective disagreement (the interesting kind). It is a worthless semantic disagreement. "Worthless" because if you avoid using the same word for two different things, there is no disagreement. Those who contribute to the peer-reviewed literature say chess is too complex to solve. You and @tygxc say "no, let's change the meaning of solve, and then we can say we can solve it". Using the same word for two different things and then failing to acknowledge you are doing this is obfuscation, and its only contribution to objective knowledge is to make it more difficult to communicate about it.
A concrete example is 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6. Regarding the weak solution of chess (same meaning as the entire peer-reviewed literature), this is an unproven case requiring proof if this position can be reached from either of the two candidate strategies.
All of us agree it is very likely a win for white. Some don't understand that it be an excellent bet - maybe one you could stake your life on - but not epistemiologically justifying certainty. They erroneously think that induction from the tiny amount of existing chess praxis by flawed humans and engine including, say, an evaluation of 500 centipawns (like many positions that are not won) and a LeelaZero evaluation of 99.8% (or whatever it is) is enough to be certain. No, it ain't. Maybe you could stake your like on it, but staking your life on 10^20 such examples all being correct would be suicidal.
This is Elroch's effort. The same thing again about 10^20 "such examples". We're not talking about 10^20 "such examples", Elroch ... we're talking about that specific example, so who is currently living in fantasy land? Do you think that 1. d4 might lose by force? You'd really be forced to think that, if you think 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 might not lose.
Few people have a good intuitive understanding of the quantification of belief: all studies show systematic errors in how people deal with extreme cases. Perhaps I can help someone (but only those conducive to improving understanding)
An excellent way to think of the meaning of probabilities is how they relate to returns on bets - the way it was first thought of in the 17th century. They asked the question "would it be wise to take a bet at certain odds?"
For the question of whether 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6, an assertion of certainty that this is a black win is a belief that the correct odds for this to be a win for black are 1:0. This would mean, for example, that it would be an excellent bet to stake say, the entire wealth of the planet versus one unit of some absurdly inflated currency - say worth a billionth of a cent - on it being a win. Or a bet far more extreme than that, with some more imagination!
True certainty would make such a bet a no-brainer - there is literally no risk and there is a finite reward, so it should be taken. But what you see as "near enough" certainty makes a sufficiently extreme bet foolish. That is the real situation.
@5174
"But what you see as "near enough" certainty makes a sufficiently extreme bet foolish."
++ Betting is about probability of an event.
You could bet about me winning 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? as black against Carlsen.
Solving a game is not about probability, it is about certainty.
It is deterministic, not probabilistic.
It is certain that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for black with best play from both sides.
It is certain that 2 Ba6? does not oppose to the draw more than 2 Nf3.
It is certain that 2 Ba6? is not optimal play.
I have proven @5173 that it is checkmate in 82 but that is not even necessary.
Black is up material. All other factors are equal. Hence white loses.
It is certain that 1 a4 opposes no more to a draw than 1 e4, or d4.
It is certain that 1 Nh3 opposes no more to a draw than 1 Nf3.
It is certain that 1 a4, or 1 Nh3 cannot be more optimal than 1 e4, 1 d4, or 1 Nf3.
It is certain that the endgame https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1164259 is a draw.
In 1976 some mathematicians argued that a proof could only contain human deductive arguments and they rejected the computer proof of the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem.
It seems some people here only accept computer output as proof
and not human deductive arguments.
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
tygxc wrote:
...
Solve chess without the 50-moves rule.
Then that same solution also applies with the 50-moves rule.
Only if you're a moron.
But the topic our foregoing exchanges was whether the tablebases strongly solve positions with 7 men or less. You seem to be trying to change it.
I tend to think that tygxc is right on that one. At some point too, it's necessary to relax the emphasis on deductive reasoning. As I pointed out to Elroch, you can't solve chess without the mind of a scientist and for all the riduculous stuff about five years, tygxc still thinks more like a scientist than most of the others. A scientist with an unfortunate obsession, maybe, like Benny Hill in The Italian Job. Of course, I doubt Elroch believes me but nevertheless, with a mindset in which we can't know if 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses for white, science isn't being allowed to play a part. It's as though he and others have never heard of successive approximations and closing in on an accurate result incrementally. No, for them it's got to be all worked out deductively. That's rubbish.
Let's be clear here. This is not an objective disagreement (the interesting kind). It is a worthless semantic disagreement. "Worthless" because if you avoid using the same word for two different things, there is no disagreement. Those who contribute to the peer-reviewed literature say chess is too complex to solve. You and @tygxc say "no, let's change the meaning of solve, and then we can say we can solve it". Using the same word for two different things and then failing to acknowledge you are doing this is obfuscation, and its only contribution to objective knowledge is to make it more difficult to communicate about it.
A concrete example is 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6. Regarding the weak solution of chess (same meaning as the entire peer-reviewed literature), this is an unproven case requiring proof if this position can be reached from either of the two candidate strategies.
All of us agree it is very likely a win for white. Some don't understand that it be an excellent bet - maybe one you could stake your life on - but not epistemiologically justifying certainty. They erroneously think that induction from the tiny amount of existing chess praxis by flawed humans and engine including, say, an evaluation of 500 centipawns (like many positions that are not won) and a LeelaZero evaluation of 99.8% (or whatever it is) is enough to be certain. No, it ain't. Maybe you could stake your like on it, but staking your life on 10^20 such examples all being correct would be suicidal.
This is Elroch's effort. The same thing again about 10^20 "such examples". We're not talking about 10^20 "such examples", Elroch ... we're talking about that specific example, so who is currently living in fantasy land? Do you think that 1. d4 might lose by force? You'd really be forced to think that, if you think 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 might not lose.
Few people have a good intuitive understanding of the quantification of belief: all studies show systematic errors in how people deal with extreme cases. Perhaps I can help someone (but only those conducive to improving understanding)
An excellent way to think of the meaning of probabilities is how they relate to returns on bets - the way it was first thought of in the 17th century. They asked the question "would it be wise to take a bet at certain odds?"
For the question of whether 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6, an assertion of certainty that this is a black win is a belief that the correct odds for this to be a win for black are 1:0. This would mean, for example, that it would be an excellent bet to stake say, the entire wealth of the planet versus one unit of some absurdly inflated currency - say worth a billionth of a cent - on it being a win. Or a bet far more extreme than that, with some more imagination!
True certainty would make such a bet a no-brainer - there is literally no risk and there is a finite reward, so it should be taken. But what you see as "near enough" certainty makes a sufficiently extreme bet foolish. That is the real situation.
Belief and knowledge is my subject area, much more than it is yours. Yours is formal probability based on quantifiable statistics, which are real distribution patterns. That says nothing about how we may interpret those distribution patterns, as inductively obtained belief or knowledge that they will continue to display in similar circumstances.
<<This would mean, for example, that it would be an excellent bet to stake say, the entire wealth of the planet versus one unit of some absurdly inflated currency - say worth a billionth of a cent - on it being a win.>>
I don't understand that at all. I suppose it's one of those theoretical things where the effective cost of placing the bet is ignored? Everything costs money when time is money.
@5154
"an evaluation of 500 centipawns (like many positions that are not won) and a LeelaZero evaluation of 99.8% (or whatever it is) is enough to be certain"
++ No, engine evaluations are flawed.
Certainty comes from calculation until the 7-men table base or a prior 3-fold repetition.
However, certainty also comes from human deductive logic.
When all other factors are equal any material advantage wins.
After 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 black is up material and all other factors are equal, so white loses.
The correct method, if an attempt is to be made to solve chess, is first to try to develop a theoretical understanding of points of flux in chess games. That is, points of tension which are complex and where small variations can mean the difference between winning and losing. I would call them positional-tactical melees, perhaps, where tactics can change the positional sense of a game. They need to focus entirely on that aspect of chess for several years and try to build a store of pattern tranformation recognition. Are you with me? Then they need to try to perfect algorithms dealing with just those game aspects and no others. Gradually, over time, it will be seen that the understanding of the influence of tactical exchanges becomes more wide-reaching. I think that solving chess is hampered by the existing focus on entire games. Maybe I should contact @Caproni, to see what he thinks of my idea. If he says that there's a problem with my thinking, then I'll believe him, because I would know he would have thought it through.