There is no cure for sloppy thinking in later years.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
@6777
"difference between inductive evidence and proof"
++ 'Proof is evidence compelling the mind to accept a truth or fact' - Webster
the definition of weakly solved:
"weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition"
++ The definition does NOT say "ANY LEGAL OPPOSITION", it says: any opposition.
'To oppose = to resist against' - Webster
1 e4 and 1 d4 at least oppose to the draw, try to win. 1 f3 or 1 g4? oppose less or not at all.
"as is obvious to any game theorist."
++ Prof. van den Herik is the authority on game theory.
He wrote: 'it is beneficial to incorporate game knowledge into game solving.'
It is game knowledge that 1 e4 and 1 d4 oppose more to the draw than 1 f3 or 1 g4?
That game knowledge already formulated by Capablanca has been independently acquired by AlphaZero with only the Laws of Chess as input.
Input = axioms = Laws of Chess
Method = boolean operations = logic
Output = theorem = game knowledge
Once it is established how black can draw against 1 e4 and 1 d4,
it becomes a mere formality to prove the same for 1 f3 or 1 g4?
tygxc wrote:
@6776
"Show one fact that shows chess is a draw."
Here are 136 - 17 = 119 facts, 119 games of 2 years each, ICCF (grand)master + engine, i.e. 4 centuries of engine calculations
https://www.iccf.com/event?id=85042
There are many more such games. We have over 1000 ICCF WC finals games thus ending in draws and being perfect games with optimal play from both sides.
That is inductive evidence.
Deductive evidence is available as well.
It is a fact that a queen up is enough to win all other things being equal.
It is a fact that a pawn can queen.
It is thus a fact that a pawn up is enough to win all other things being equal.
It is a fact that 3 tempi in the initial position are worth 1 pawn.
Thus it is a fact that 1 tempo in the initial position is not enough to win.
Every more move dilutes the initial tempo up.
Chess is a draw.
I think I've figured it out. You have seen games that ended in a draw, therefore, for you chess is a draw. But I've seen games that end with white winning. Therefore, for me chess is a forced win for white.
I suppose there are people who have witnessed black winning. I guess for those people chess is a forced win for black.
Everyone wins.
PS: Chess is a forced win for white.
Dec 19, 2022
0
#5125
There is no good reason to just play 960. We will never perfect chess. If you live to be 99 you wont live long enough
Dec 19, 2022
0
#5126
tygxc wrote:
@6777
"difference between inductive evidence and proof"
++ 'Proof is evidence compelling the mind to accept a truth or fact' - Webster
the definition of weakly solved:
"weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition"
++ The definition does NOT say "ANY LEGAL OPPOSITION", it says: any opposition.
'To oppose = to resist against' - Webster
You seem not even to know the difference between definitions used in a mathematical discipline and those generally used by those who have no knowledge of the subject.
Do tell us what a "group" means according to Websters, and explain how it is relevant to abstract algebra. or a "field". (Just jestin'...😉)
That being said, note that "legal opposition" is clearly a subset of opposition (consisting of all opposition that is legal). It is difficult to understand why you would want to deal with illegal moves as well, as your objection suggests.
Dec 19, 2022
0
#5127
Optimissed wrote:
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
DesperateKingWalk wrote:
avramtparra wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@6746
"the question is to derive it from the start. Thats solving for all 8x8 chess"
++ No that is not solving 8x8 chess.
Determining if the starting position is a draw, a win, or a loss is ultra-weakly solving chess. There is massive evidence from millions of human and engine games as well as the logical argument that a tempo is not enough to win to know that the initial position is a draw.
Weakly solving chess is figuring out how to draw from the starting position. It is thus the path from the initial position to other drawn positions until a known draw, like a 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition.
Strongly solving chess is figuring out for all legal positions if they are draw, a win, or a loss.
"Solving chess means finding an optimal strategy for the game of chess, that is, one by which one of the players (White or Black) can always force a victory, or either can force a draw (see solved game)" - Wikipedia
The only way to do that is to go through the entire position tree because you don't know if black's position is a starting loss. Because game theory says both sides have perfect information, and like you said about tempo advantage, you literally don't know if the starting position is a win loss or draw of white. I am not sure what you are saying, because what I am talking about is literally "solving chess", and this is coming from someone who took a class on weak and strong deterministic problems.
I can see what you are saying about, "Strongly solving"chess, but if you think about its the same case, where you would need a quantum computer to just go through all the variations, and if you think about it, if you find the most optimal solution any other legal position would be a loss from which ever side changed from the given optimal solution and you wouldnt have to go through all those tree paths
Few people really understand these facts. But I see you do understand.
People think they can gain insight on the true nature of chess. By looking at game statistics.
But all this is meaningless. As any chess position including the starting position only has 3 true evaluations. It is a win for white, It is a win for black, or the position is a draw with perfect play.
You gain no true insight by looking at imperfect play of human or computer game stats. It is still assumption.
And as far as we know, black could have a forced win. We have done no solving of the game of chess other then with table bases. And until we reach a 32 man table base we will not know even the ultra-weakly solving answer. And unless something changes, quantum computers will be no help in answering any questions in chess.
Yes to ultra-weakly solving to Strongly solving chess is going to be one in the same for the game of chess.
No, the statistics don't lead to an irrefutable solution regarding the correct outcome of chess given best play but they do lead us to believe most strongly that it's a draw ... or at least, they should. No-one has exhibited a forced win and that is an important consideration which has a strong bearing on what we believe about chess. However, there's another way of looking at it, which is to consider the overall pattern, where white's opening advantage is gradually cancelled out because it isn't initially strong enough to increase. Logically there cannot come a point where this cancelling out is suddenly reversed and therefore we can know that chess is a draw. This is inductive reasoning but the fundamental basis of absolutely all reasoning is actually induction, which is a fact unknown to many.
That why your logic only leads to the conclusion. That you are using assumptions to reach other assumptions about what we need to know as fact.
Chess could be a draw, but you have zero facts to conclude chess is a draw. We have only assumptions based on the statistical evidence that chess is most likely a draw with perfect play.
We have endgames that we have solved with perfect play with the endgame tablebases. That were assumed to be drawn for over 100 years. Until chess was solved perfectly for that endgame. Showing are assumptions were wrong. If this happens with 7 man positions. How wrong can we be using assumption about 32 man positions.
Chess is a 100% tactical game. You can not use patterns to deduce with 100% certainty what the true outcome with perfect play is in the game of chess. As chess is not won by tempos, or even having a material advantage.
That is why chess has to be solved to answer the question is chess a draw with perfect play, or is white winning with perfect play, or even if black is winning with perfect play for both sides.
Assuming is not proof. As we painfully learned about endgame positions that were solved using perfect play.
I've previously explained that deductive proof is impossible.
This is incorrect by most people's interpretation of the word "impossible". It is certainly possible to write a program that solves chess. I believe it is possible to write a brute force program that solves chess that will run on any CPU with small resources - it would just be impractically slow (the simplest versions would take of the order of the typical number of legal moves to the power of the longest legal game - very inefficient, as is often the case for programs that manage with very small storage). Anyhow, a more appropriate word is "impractical".
To contrast, it is impossible to write a program to determine if a general program presented to it will halt (This is the Halting Problem, and the impossibility was proven by Alan Turing in 1936).
That's obviously because a full solution of chess seems to be impossible: or even the so-called weak solution.
Both are merely impractical.
Given that it's impossible, and given that we still may want to reach a conclusion, then we have to use whatever methodology is available to us. That is necessarily inductive.
Given that it is impractical...
However, I've noticed that a number of people misunderstand the relationship between inductive and deductive reason and don't sufficiently grasp the full implications of the truth that deduction has to rest up on premises. As such, syllogistic logic ultimately always rests on inductive ideas. That's just a unavoidable fact, from which there's no escape.
Tell it to the programs that derive mathematical theorems. They are deductive. It is true that knowing they are deductive is something that could be argued to be subject to human error, but that does NOT make the programs themselves inductive - they execute logical deductions represented digitally.
Dec 19, 2022
0
#5128
tygxc wrote:
++ 10^18 relevant positions is not the same as 10^44 legal positions.
Nor even the same as 10^17 relevant positions.
Are you hoping to triple your money now?
Optimissed wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@6776
"Show one fact that shows chess is a draw."
Here are 136 - 17 = 119 facts, 119 games of 2 years each, ICCF (grand)master + engine, i.e. 4 centuries of engine calculations
https://www.iccf.com/event?id=85042
There are many more such games. We have over 1000 ICCF WC finals games thus ending in draws and being perfect games with optimal play from both sides.
That is inductive evidence.
Deductive evidence is available as well.
It is a fact that a queen up is enough to win all other things being equal.
It is a fact that a pawn can queen.
It is thus a fact that a pawn up is enough to win all other things being equal.
It is a fact that 3 tempi in the initial position are worth 1 pawn.
Thus it is a fact that 1 tempo in the initial position is not enough to win.
Every more move dilutes the initial tempo up.
Chess is a draw.
I think I've figured it out. You have seen games that ended in a draw, therefore, for you chess is a draw. But I've seen games that end with white winning. Therefore, for me chess is a forced win for white.
I suppose there are people who have witnessed black winning. I guess for those people chess is a forced win for black.
Everyone wins.
PS: Chess is a forced win for white.
I see your logic now. Given that two or three Presidents have been assassinated, It's logically necessary that such a gory fate will overtake them all, sooner or later. Obviously, that applies to chess.
Exactly. He is personally aware of games that he believes were played perfectly and end in draws. Therefore he assumes all games, if played perfectly, end in draws. So I suppose his same logic could apply to presidents.
The difference, I think, is that it's pretty easy to prove if someone was assassinated. But not so easy to prove if chess is a draw or forced win, even if we witness that draw or forced win personally.
Dec 19, 2022
0
#5131
lfPatriotGames wrote:
...
The difference, I think, is that it's pretty easy to prove if someone was assassinated. But not so easy to prove if chess is a draw or forced win, even if we witness that draw or forced win personally.
I think if a president gets assassinated it's usually assumed someone made a blunder.
and one word for you blue.. humblebrag. lol ..had to take it of my 
Dec 19, 2022
0
#5133
Well, I ran it through Google translate, but I'm still no wiser.
Strangely it says, "and ne word for iu blue.. gumblebrag. lol ..gad that's it and off we are happy.png". Better run my virus checker.
Dec 19, 2022
0
#5134
Phew! Had it on "Ukrainian" instead of "Detect language". Still no wiser though; it thinks it's English.
tygxc wrote:
@6776
"Show one fact that shows chess is a draw."
Here are 136 - 17 = 119 facts, 119 games of 2 years each, ICCF (grand)master + engine, i.e. 4 centuries of engine calculations
https://www.iccf.com/event?id=85042
There are many more such games. We have over 1000 ICCF WC finals games thus ending in draws and being perfect games with optimal play from both sides.
That is inductive evidence.
Deductive evidence is available as well.
It is a fact that a queen up is enough to win all other things being equal.
It is a fact that a pawn can queen.
It is thus a fact that a pawn up is enough to win all other things being equal.
It is a fact that 3 tempi in the initial position are worth 1 pawn.
Thus it is a fact that 1 tempo in the initial position is not enough to win.
Every more move dilutes the initial tempo up.
Chess is a draw.
thousands of math theorems have proved that theorems hold up until huge numbers appear, such as aleph numbers, the same numbers on scale of chess. Statistically evidence gets you no where in proofs, sorry. You are making no sense g,
obvious troll is obvious at this point
Dec 19, 2022
0
#5137
Sillver1 wrote:
I've tried in technicolour. I don't think in @tygxc's case it's the colour that's the problem.
@6791
"ICCF WC games are not perfect games with perfect play for both sides."
++ Not all ICCF WC Finals games are perfect games with optimal play from both sides.
The decisive ICCF WC Finals games are not perfect games and contain 1 error,
usually the last move before resignation.
Not all drawn ICCF WC Finals games are perfect, but >99% of them are perfect games with optimal play from both sides. The remaining <1% contain 2 errors that undo each other.
"What device or chess program was used to created the perfect game with perfect play."
++ An ICCF (grand)master with engine and average 5 days per move.
"what device or chess program was used to prove they were perfect games with perfect play"
++ Statistics: fitting a Poisson distribution of errors / game to the ICCF WC Finals results.
"No chess program exist that can play perfect chess."
++ Agreed, but with more time per move it approaches it.
At 1 s / move: 88.2% of games perfect. At 1 min / move: 97.9% of games perfect.
"This thread would not exist as chess would be solved."
++ For all practical purpose chess is already ultra-weakly solved,
the game-theoretic value of the initial position being a draw.
Chess is already in part weakly solved. ICCF WC games show how to draw
against 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, and 1 Nf3, but not yet in all variations.
Also the teams of grandmasters and engines that helped prepare over the board human classical world championship matches have already weakly solved parts of chess.
Chess is already strongly solved for all 7-men positions and for some 8-men positions.
@6776
"Show one fact that shows chess is a draw."
Here are 136 - 17 = 119 facts, 119 games of 2 years each, ICCF (grand)master + engine, i.e. 4 centuries of engine calculations
https://www.iccf.com/event?id=85042
There are many more such games. We have over 1000 ICCF WC finals games thus ending in draws and being perfect games with optimal play from both sides.
That is inductive evidence.
Deductive evidence is available as well.
It is a fact that a queen up is enough to win all other things being equal.
It is a fact that a pawn can queen.
It is thus a fact that a pawn up is enough to win all other things being equal.
It is a fact that 3 tempi in the initial position are worth 1 pawn.
Thus it is a fact that 1 tempo in the initial position is not enough to win.
Every more move dilutes the initial tempo up.
Chess is a draw.