I think that it will be shown to be a draw.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Sep 23, 2022
0
#5143
Optimissed wrote:
It becomes a bit annoying to be constantly told I'm wrong because they say so. I sometimes just tell people they're a bit stupid. I think it's fair enough when they make personal comments, as they do. It isn't as easy as you might imagine being cleverer than nearly everyone else in an environment where a lot of people's egos are at stake and there are always those who turn it around and start projecting.
A couple of years reading comments on chess.com forums leads me to believe that a sizeable % of posters here believe they are laboring under the conditions you describe.
mpaetz wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
It becomes a bit annoying to be constantly told I'm wrong because they say so. I sometimes just tell people they're a bit stupid. I think it's fair enough when they make personal comments, as they do. It isn't as easy as you might imagine being cleverer than nearly everyone else in an environment where a lot of people's egos are at stake and there are always those who turn it around and start projecting.
A couple of years reading comments on chess.com forums leads me to believe that a sizeable % of posters here believe they are laboring under the conditions you describe.
I'm certain of it but not the majority.
I'm hoping Elroch is going to pay ball and tell me whether in his belief we can know that 1. d4 doesn't lose by force for white.
I have him in a no-win predicament. I'd be very impressed if he can get out of it. On one hand, if 1. d4 certainly doesn't lose by force, then there's a complete lack of consistency in his arguments, to the extent that they fall apart, since he's depending on the idea that chess is not solved and therefore according to his own arguments, there must be doubt that we can be certain that 1. d4 doesn't lose.
On the other hand, the intellectually honest position is that 1. d4 may lose for white, by force. That's going to look a bit strange or even laughable. So I've won the argument but in which way is it won?
nadya996 wrote:
Don't mind me just getting my first word achievement
Can I help? 
Sep 23, 2022
0
#5147
RemovedUsername333 wrote:
No. You don't need to believe in the consistency of a formal system to trust it. ...
Does that mean you'll believe anything?
Sep 23, 2022
0
#5148
tygxc wrote:
@5170
"This method of solving chess relies on using the judgement of GMs or engines"
No, it does not rely on the judgement of GMs. The GMs reduce the computation to relevant width and depth.
So relying on the judgement of GMs to eliminate broad categories of games/positions from consideration, thereby making the task easier, isn't actually relying on the judgement of GMs?
The consensus of expert opinion at one time was that the only opening moves (for either color) that could lead to success against best play was using one of the center pawns. It was once the consensus of expert opinion that K+R endings with 4 pawns vs 3, all on one side of the board, was a win for the 4 pawns (Capablanca had ground out a few such wins). Many times a GM will venture an opening or defense that their opponent has declared to be inferior just to prove them wrong. GMs disagree on many points, and even generally accepted opinions sometimes turn out to be incorrect in the long run. Using a possibly unreliable basis for the investigation may well yield unsatisfactory results.
My own belief is that chess is a draw with best play. I also believe that 1.e4 e5 2.Ba6 is a certain loss. Beliefs are easy to come by--some believe humans will be raised from the dead by divine powers to live forever, some believe that human souls are just reincarnated into new bodies, some believe there is no such thing as a soul. Beliefs can be incompatible and not all can be true. Irrefutable proof is another matter.
^^^ I also thought I noticed an ephemeral inconsistency in his argumentation.
Sep 23, 2022
0
#5150
Optimissed wrote:
nadya996 wrote:
Don't mind me just getting my first word achievement
Can I help?
Help with what? I already got the achievement!
Oh I thought maybe answering you would be another achievement for you.
Optimissed wrote:
Oh I thought maybe answering you would be another achievement for you.
It wouldn't make sense to create such an achievement.
First post is easy. The check occurs at the time of posting by user A and the lookup is on user A's account.
If you want to create an achievement for user A that gives them credit for getting their first reply, then you have to check user B's posts at the time they are made...that is, every single post any other user ever makes, essentially, just to determine if it happens to be the very first reply user A has ever gotten. The lookup for each post by every user on the forum would therefore need to look up the post count of the user they are responding to, which is a lookup on another account and an extra call to the database/datastore.
It could be done anyway 
...but on the backend, this would mean you want to, say, pull all the pertinent details of all the posters every time you open a new thread page, which adds its own overhead...but that could makes sense if you need all those details anyway for other purposes.
Sep 23, 2022
0
#5153
btickler wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Oh I thought maybe answering you would be another achievement for you.
It wouldn't make sense to create such an achievement.
First post is easy. The check occurs at the time of posting by user A and the lookup is on user A's account.
If you want to create an achievement for user A that gives them credit for getting their first reply, then you have to check user B's posts at the time they are made...that is, every single post any other user ever makes, essentially, just to determine if it happens to be the very first reply user A has ever gotten. The lookup for each post by every user on the forum would therefore need to look up the post count of the user they are responding to, which is a lookup on another account and an extra call to the database/datastore.
It could be done anyway ...but on the backend, this would mean you want to, say, pull all the pertinent details of all the posters every time you open a new thread page, which adds its own overhead...but that could makes sense if you need all those details anyway for other purposes.
what
I didn't understand it either
nadya996 wrote:
what
Optimissed wrote:
I didn't understand it either
Exactly.
Oh, is it a new account ... I just really like the thumbnail picture. I'm sure btickler was trying to be helpful, him being a computer expert and everything. I just like talking to people with nice icons.
Sep 23, 2022
0
#5157
NervesofButter wrote:
Dont ya love it when a brand new account just so happens to find a popular forum post.
oh sorry, next time I want to get the first comment award, I'll make sure to scroll all the way down 
nadya996 wrote:
NervesofButter wrote:
Dont ya love it when a brand new account just so happens to find a popular forum post.
oh sorry, next time I want to get the first comment award, I'll make sure to scroll all the way down
You could even comment on this .... next time.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/new-study-shows-chess-players-may-be-disadvantaged
I specialise in making the most unpopular posts.
@5234
"So relying on the judgement of GMs to eliminate broad categories of games/positions from consideration, thereby making the task easier, isn't actually relying on the judgement of GMs?"
++ The bulk of the work is done by the engines calculating from the humanly prepared starting positions towards the endgame table base or a prior 3-fold repetition. The GMs initiate the calculation and also terminate it when there is no doubt at all like in the opposite colored bishop ending presented. The GMs use knowledge only, no judgement. They know when all other things are equal and thus when there is no compensation of any kind to a material deficit like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? They know when an opposite colored bishop ending is a draw and when not.
The use of knowledge is allowed and beneficial.
Allis solved Connect Four with knowledge: 9 rules.
"The consensus of expert opinion at one time was that the only opening moves (for either color) that could lead to success against best play was using one of the center pawns."
++ AlphaZero independently corroborates that old opinion with no other input but the Laws of Chess, ranking 1 d4 and 1 e4 above the other. That is a bit narrow, so I would widen it with 1 c4 and 1 Nf3, consistent with the rule of 4 candidate moves in the calculation.
"a GM will venture an opening or defense that their opponent has declared to be inferior"
++ Practical play differs from theory. Miles defeated Karpov with 1 e4 a6. That does not mean Miles believed 1...a6 to be the theoretically best move, it means that Miles rightfully thought that 1...a6 gave him the best practical chance against the World Champion.
'Any opening is good enough, if its reputation is bad enough.' - Tartakower
In practical play it is often good to deliberately play an inferior line to provoke the opponent or get him out of his preparation and comfort zone.
1 g4? loses by force with best play from both sides. Nevertheless IM Basman got good results with it against masters and grandmasters e.g. in the British Championship.
"Using a possibly unreliable basis for the investigation may well yield unsatisfactory results."
++ The GMs or the engines must not evaluate or adjudicate positions unless they are absolutely sure. If any doubt, then calculate. If no doubt, then save the calculation. It is like they play an ICCF WC game: if no doubt, then offer / accept a draw. If any doubt, then play on.
"My own belief is that chess is a draw with best play. I also believe that 1.e4 e5 2.Ba6 is a certain loss." ++ I consider both proven by enough evidence to compell the mind to accept both as the truth.
So can we be certain that 1. d4 doesn't lose by force, Elroch?