stopvacuuming wrote:
borgers and coke
Ey, you knew wot gets me?
(thick Liverpool accent)
dey're all tichh!
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
So can we be certain that 1. d4 doesn't lose by force, Elroch?
Of course we can, if we wish to be. We can also be sure that we will be alive in 24 hours time. In both cases, our belief is reasonable probably right, and may be confirmed by the facts in the future, but certainty cannot be justified right now.
I can see why it is difficult for a chess player without substantial familiarity with the general truths about all inductive knowledge not to understand this, and that is to be expected. What it amounts to is a poor estimate of a probability in a way that is qualitatively extremely wrong, but pragmatically unlikely to matter.
Due to the difficulty, I have on several occasions attempted to lead people through the non-technical sequences of thoughts that make the result clear, but I am well aware that many people - especially when they are not young - have no real interest in replacing long-held erroneous ideas with correct ones.
We can dispense with the rest because it enlarges on the core mistake.
<<What it amounts to is a poor estimate of a probability in a way that is qualitatively extremely wrong, but pragmatically unlikely to matter.>>
Discussing 1. d4, you seem to see its results as probabilistic.
That's all it takes for me to realise you are unfamiliar with Bayesian probability (the only type of relevance here) where probabilities quantify belief states. Certainty is a probability of 1 or 0, but is only appropriate for propositions that can be deduced from known facts.
So it's simply a fact that quantifying belief about a proposition is probabilistic, only simplifying to boolean logic when the line of inference is deductive from known facts.
We have the same difficulty in quantum mechanics, as I once tried to explain but you failed to grasp it at that time. We accept that probability plays a fundamental part in QM. Is a fundamental entity a particle or a wave? What does wave mean?
Glad to help. A wave function is a mathematical model that obeys a specific law describing how it evolves over time. It is closely related to belief about the state of the system (technically being an integral of complex-weighted eigenfunctions, typically position eigenstates. Momentum eigenstates provide a dual representation).
If we see an entity as existing in a place at a time, we can see probability regarding its position as a waveform. But is that waveform a conceptual idea of our minds or is it intrinsic to the entity when it manifests as a waveform? Could it even be both?
To reiterate, it's a mathematical model that determines everything we believe about the state of a quantum mechanical system and how that belief evolves over time.
We can now leave that indeterminate, because it doesn't apply to 1.d4. The question is "can we be sure that 1. d4 isn't a forced loss for white?" You are suggesting that there's a probability attached to that in such a way that the optimal outcome is represented by a probability.
Yes, remember Bayesian probability uses probabilities to quantify belief states.
But that is a function of the estimated possible error in the machine and algorithms which determine it, or are supposed to. Probability does not exist intrinsically in 1. d4 and its optimum outcome with best play by both sides. It is either one thing or another. A forced win, a forced loss or a draw.
Yes. Like the toss of a coin is a head or a tail. And before it is tossed our belief state might be (half head, half tail).
And that is why your attempt at explaining your belief that we can never be entirely sure fails.
I NEVER said "never". We can be sure once the coin is tossed or the game solved.
It's like agnosticism in religion. Maybe YOU cannot be sure but others believe they can, one way or another. How? The use of reason. Reason used correctly and well. There is no intrinsic probability attached to either matter and so any attempt to use that as an explanatory device is doomed to failure. The probability (or lack of complete certainty) exists in your mind. And that is all.
Bayesian probability is indeed about state of belief in situations involving uncertainty. And it is, as Jaynes said, "the logic of science".
Blind belief is like taking a prior that is certain. It can be done: it's just not optimal. [Note that in terms of quantifying accuracy of beliefs in terms of cross entropy, being certain and turning out to be wrong is infinitely costly. It is much wises to be almost certain, which costs virtually nothing if you are right and costs a finite amount if you are wrong.
That shows that you are nowhere near understanding what I'm talking about. I'm starting to really worry about you ...
Bayesian probability is an exceptionally simple concept. It's just that it is inapplicable to this situation. I'm going to have to explain game theory to you, to show why it isn't relevant to solving chess. I'm not in the mood at the moment .... I've just done a 3 hour fast walk, about 10 1/2 or 11 miles, and am relaxing. I won't say anything further because my innate Northern-ness might come out. I could end up telling you exactly what I think of somebody cannot understand what he is being told.
I'll explain game theory and why it isn't and cannot be applicable to solving chess maybe tomorrow. It is applicable to playing it. It is not applicable to soving it.
Sep 24, 2022
0
#5184
@Optimissed
Not understanding what you write is a prerequisite for being regarded as intelligent. From your frequent comments on the correlation between the two, you've obviously not grasped that.
Sep 24, 2022
0
#5185
Understanding @Optimissed requires specialised medical qualifications I don't possess.
MARattigan wrote:
@Optimissed
Not understanding what you write is a prerequisite for being regarded as intelligent.
1) You regard yourself as intelligent. Wrongly, I think. You're on the way out.
2) You don't understand much of what anybody writes but certainly what I write may as well be in Martian, as far as your ability to understand it goes.
3) There are others like you.
4) Your comment exactly explains how you rationalise your stupidity to one-another.
I would think that you aren't entirely stupid, Elroch; but that imprisonment within academia for so long has stultified your thinking apparatus. Especially the part of it which is designed to comprehend new or somewhat difficult ideas.
Yours needs the dust excavating and if it's eventually found, possibly some type of shock therapy to get it going? Your situation is worse than I ever realised. You actually don't have a working brain .... all you have is perception recollection mechanisms.
Sep 24, 2022
0
#5188
tygxc wrote:
@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.
Still, this method relies on admittedly-imperfect human judgement to choose only some positions to be calculated by machines whose evaluation functions have been set by humans with imperfect knowledge. And human history is filled with "facts" that were KNOWN to be true (in virtually every field), only to be upset by later discoveries.
It was the opinion of an expert, regarding Bayesian propability, which brought unjust prosecutions, I remember now but can't remember the context. People were brought to trial and found guilty on the evidence of some iddiot of a university professor, who misused Bayesian probability. Maybe ten or so years since and I was telling people that his evidence was incorrect and maybe even unlawful. I remember it now. I think it was to do with cot death. Both a woman's children died mysteriously and she was found guilty of murder on the say-so of some fool of a professor. Eventually I think he was discredited but the entire episode showed clearly the folly of taking the word of a university academic fool on Bayesian probability, who thought that the probability of two cot deaths was one cot death squared. I was explaining, on Facebook, that the university guy was wrong. Really the odds of two deaths are not far off the odds against one in some circumstances. Later, he was discredited.
I should think again, Elroch, before you assume that people don't understand things. It's a given that you don't understand things, however, but that's a function of your arrogance and conceit.
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
So can we be certain that 1. d4 doesn't lose by force, Elroch?
Of course we can, if we wish to be. We can also be sure that we will be alive in 24 hours time. In both cases, our belief is reasonable probably right, and may be confirmed by the facts in the future, but certainty cannot be justified right now.
I can see why it is difficult for a chess player without substantial familiarity with the general truths about all inductive knowledge not to understand this, and that is to be expected. What it amounts to is a poor estimate of a probability in a way that is qualitatively extremely wrong, but pragmatically unlikely to matter.
Due to the difficulty, I have on several occasions attempted to lead people through the non-technical sequences of thoughts that make the result clear, but I am well aware that many people - especially when they are not young - have no real interest in replacing long-held erroneous ideas with correct ones.
We can dispense with the rest because it enlarges on the core mistake.
<<What it amounts to is a poor estimate of a probability in a way that is qualitatively extremely wrong, but pragmatically unlikely to matter.>>
Discussing 1. d4, you seem to see its results as probabilistic.
That's all it takes for me to realise you are unfamiliar with Bayesian probability (the only type of relevance here) where probabilities quantify belief states. Certainty is a probability of 1 or 0, but is only appropriate for propositions that can be deduced from known facts.
So it's simply a fact that quantifying belief about a proposition is probabilistic, only simplifying to boolean logic when the line of inference is deductive from known facts.
We have the same difficulty in quantum mechanics, as I once tried to explain but you failed to grasp it at that time. We accept that probability plays a fundamental part in QM. Is a fundamental entity a particle or a wave? What does wave mean?
Glad to help. A wave function is a mathematical model that obeys a specific law describing how it evolves over time. It is closely related to belief about the state of the system (technically being an integral of complex-weighted eigenfunctions, typically position eigenstates. Momentum eigenstates provide a dual representation).
If we see an entity as existing in a place at a time, we can see probability regarding its position as a waveform. But is that waveform a conceptual idea of our minds or is it intrinsic to the entity when it manifests as a waveform? Could it even be both?
To reiterate, it's a mathematical model that determines everything we believe about the state of a quantum mechanical system and how that belief evolves over time.
We can now leave that indeterminate, because it doesn't apply to 1.d4. The question is "can we be sure that 1. d4 isn't a forced loss for white?" You are suggesting that there's a probability attached to that in such a way that the optimal outcome is represented by a probability.
Yes, remember Bayesian probability uses probabilities to quantify belief states.
But that is a function of the estimated possible error in the machine and algorithms which determine it, or are supposed to. Probability does not exist intrinsically in 1. d4 and its optimum outcome with best play by both sides. It is either one thing or another. A forced win, a forced loss or a draw.
Yes. Like the toss of a coin is a head or a tail. And before it is tossed our belief state might be (half head, half tail).
And that is why your attempt at explaining your belief that we can never be entirely sure fails.
I NEVER said "never". We can be sure once the coin is tossed or the game solved.
It's like agnosticism in religion. Maybe YOU cannot be sure but others believe they can, one way or another. How? The use of reason. Reason used correctly and well. There is no intrinsic probability attached to either matter and so any attempt to use that as an explanatory device is doomed to failure. The probability (or lack of complete certainty) exists in your mind. And that is all.
Bayesian probability is indeed about state of belief in situations involving uncertainty. And it is, as Jaynes said, "the logic of science".
Blind belief is like taking a prior that is certain. It can be done: it's just not optimal. [Note that in terms of quantifying accuracy of beliefs in terms of cross entropy, being certain and turning out to be wrong is infinitely costly. It is much wises to be almost certain, which costs virtually nothing if you are right and costs a finite amount if you are wrong.
That shows that you are nowhere near understanding what I'm talking about. I'm starting to really worry about you ...
Bayesian probability is an exceptionally simple concept. It's just that it is inapplicable to this situation. I'm going to have to explain game theory to you, to show why it isn't relevant to solving chess. I'm not in the mood at the moment .... I've just done a 3 hour fast walk, about 10 1/2 or 11 miles, and am relaxing. I won't say anything further because my innate Northern-ness might come out. I could end up telling you exactly what I think of somebody cannot understand what he is being told.
I'll explain game theory and why it isn't and cannot be applicable to solving chess maybe tomorrow. It is applicable to playing it. It is not applicable to soving it.
I think this is all the evidence that's needed that Elroch doesn't read or doesn't understand arguments he then proceeds to reject.
Elroch has made it clear that he doesn't unrderstand the subject, doesn't intend to try to understand it and fully intends to continue to argue within his parallel universe, where only data NOT relating to solving chess is discussed. He can argue that he has the academic qualifications that make him right til he's blue in the face but I have rarely come across anyone who is so completely incapable of reading, taking note of, considering and answering criticisms. I don't think Elroch has any credibility left at all but I'll still explain why theory of games isn't relevant to solving chess, at some point. It could be relevant to playing it ... ie choosing effective (but not, necessarily, the strongest) moves, if a strategy were developed to play chess that way. For all his talk about strategies, no such strategy is possible for solving chess, since the only possible strategy is to consider the strongest moves and to evaluate them.
Sep 24, 2022
0
#5191
tygxc wrote:
@5260
"@tygxc does not understand the definition of weak solution"
++ I do understand. I quote peer-reviewed literature on solving games:
You post links to peer-reviewed literature. You misquote (or misinterpret) the content.'weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition'
calls for opposition, i.e. an act of opposing, of resisting against the game-theoretic value.
An obvious misinterpretation.'the game-theoretic value of a game, i.e., the outcome when all participants play optimally"
calls for all participants to play optimally't is often beneficial to incorporate knowledge-based methods in game-solving programs'
encourages to incorporate knowledge
Knowledge being distinct from wild guesses with van den Herik's intended meaning.
"1. the initial position is symmetrical, so white cannot be lost"
++ Yes, that is correct. Moreover white has the advantage of 1 tempo.
1 tempo is worth less than 1 pawn, about 0.33 pawn.
By weight or volume?
You can queen a pawn but you cannot queen a tempo.
So black cannot be lost either. So the initial position is a draw.
Struggling to understand that. Can you explain how it works in this simpler position?
White to play
"waving hands deals with any possibility of zugzwang"
++ There is no Zugzwang in the initial position.
So you can wave your hands. What a clever boy!
"2. there are a lot more draws between strong players than white wins, so obviously that is the right result."
++ Yes, the stronger the players, the more draws. The longer the time, the more draws.
They rather bizarrely had a chess craze in the public bar of my local once where almost none of the participants had ever played before. Almost all of the games on the first day were drawn on time (closing time); possibly also under the 75 move rule but I don't think anyone was counting.Over the years the draw rate goes up.
It is impossible to explain in a consistent way the results of the ICCF WC: 136 games = 127 draws + 6 white wins + 3 black wins assuming chess being a white or black win.
I see no difficulty. You find it impossible because you're trying to use a flawed method in the explanation.
You've been invited several times to explain the results in a set of SF15 v SF15 KNNvKP games from a position known to be a White win because it's in the tablebases - no response. I post another set of SF15 v SF15 games here, perhaps you could try those.
I haven't indicated whether the starting position is a win or a draw or how many errors I think there are, but you claim to be able to tell that from the results without reference to a tablebase. There are 12 games all drawn by reference to 7 man tablebases (no agreed draws).
I can't get the right results using your method - can you show a worked example please? What should be the result of the starting position and how many errors have been made? (No peeking.)
@5286
"this method relies on admittedly-imperfect human judgement to choose only some positions to be calculated by machines whose evaluation functions have been set by humans with imperfect knowledge."
++ Terminating an obvious draw holds no risk.
Selecting 4 promising lines holds no risk.
"And human history is filled with "facts" that were KNOWN to be true (in virtually every field), only to be upset by later discoveries." ++ Many mathematical proofs had flaws and needed correction. The Four Color Theorem had a flaw at first. Many proofs of the Riemann Hypothesis were found flawed. That is no excuse to refrain from attempting all mathematical proofs. Likewise there might be a mistake is no excuse for not solving chess.
Sep 25, 2022
0
#5193
tygxc wrote:
@5286
"this method relies on admittedly-imperfect human judgement to choose only some positions to be calculated by machines whose evaluation functions have been set by humans with imperfect knowledge."
++ Terminating what an imperfect human player believes to be an obvious draw holds no risk except that of being wrong, just like in every game lost over the board.
Selecting 4 promising lines holds no risk.
Laughable.
"And human history is filled with "facts" that were KNOWN to be true (in virtually every field), only to be upset by later discoveries." ++ Many mathematical proofs had flaws and needed correction. The Four Color Theorem had a flaw at first. No, Kempe's attempt at a proof (1879) had a flaw. Many proofs of the Riemann Hypothesis were found flawed. No mistaken proof of the Riemann Hypothesis has survived peer review, so the claim that such proofs were taken as fact is delusional.
That is no excuse to refrain from attempting all mathematical proofs. Likewise there might be a mistake is no excuse for not solving chess.
Better analogies are real proofs of the Four Colour Theorem, one of which has been computer verified - the entire proof has been mechanised and the validity of each step checked by the Coq proof assistant. This verification shows that the theorem can be derived from the axioms of graph theory by pure deduction.
Any real solution of chess would be amenable to such computer checking. Your notion of a mock solution would fail at the first hurdle.
Sep 25, 2022
0
#5194
tygxc wrote:
++ Terminating an obvious draw holds no risk.
The starting position is an obvious draw.
Oops, I just solved chess.
QED
Sep 25, 2022
0
#5195
llama36 wrote:
tygxc wrote:
++ Terminating an obvious draw holds no risk.
The starting position is an obvious draw.
Oops, I just solved chess.
QED
@tygxc could hardly disagree, but he will feel a bit peeved that you have managed it without a team of GMs and $5 million funding.
Sep 25, 2022
0
#5196
Elroch wrote:
llama36 wrote:
tygxc wrote:
++ Terminating an obvious draw holds no risk.
The starting position is an obvious draw.
Oops, I just solved chess.
QED
@tygxc could hardly disagree, but he will feel a bit peeved that you have managed it without a team of GMs and $5 million funding.
I have to refuse the GMs, but as a gesture of good will, I will allow tygxc to pay me $5 million.
Sep 25, 2022
0
#5197
stopvacuuming wrote:
ouch... see elroch i would never let him disrespect me like that personally
I suspect @Optimissed failed to realise he was replying to one of his own posts. This provides an explanation for his negative views.
Sep 25, 2022
0
#5198
Chess will be solved when knowledge is accepted. Computer search engines only sees in algorithms, human ( including Susan Polgar) see by both. Computer sees mistake I see sacrifice, checkmate!
Sep 25, 2022
0
#5199
chessglzr wrote:
Chess will be solved when knowledge is accepted. Computer search engines only sees in algorithms, human ( including Susan Polgar) see by both. Computer sees mistake I see sacrifice, checkmate!
This is why you always win against Stockfish and have a rating of 3800.
stopvacuuming wrote:
ouch... see elroch i would never let him disrespect me like that personally
If there's disrespect, it's founded directly upon 1000s of posts, where Elroch does not even consider opposing arguments but sidesteps them. It isn't just my opinion, because I've explained and, I hope, conclusively demonstrated that Elroch's opinion is founded a the constant stream of mathematical pseudo-evidence, since uncertainty is built into the programming of the engines he uses as evidence.
One reason for that is because zero is a non-rational number, from the point of view of calculations. Programmes use quantifiable calculations on which to base their results: therefore quantities that are zero are no longer quantities and are not useable by computers, regarding general calculations.
As far as opinions go, tygxc believes that 1. d4 definitely doesn't lose for white, by force. I've taken the liberty of transferring the discussion from 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6, which does lose for white, to 1. d4, which doesn't lose, because it doesn't alter the nature of the disagreement in any way but it adds emphasis and is clearer. RemovedUserName implies very clearly that she believes we can be certain about these things. Mpaez says he is personally certain ... that he sees no uncertainty and I also agree that there are chess positions, the evaluations regarding which we can be certain about, without any necessity to try to mimic computers.
This leaves Elroch, who believes there is uncertainty as to whether 1. d4 doesn't lose for white. I've explained clearly that such uncertainty exists in his mind and is not a product of mathematics in any absolute or true sense. The uncertainty exists because he thinks he's a computer, which goes well with the old joke about slightly mad philosophy professors, who sometimes think they're a teapot.
So can we be certain that 1. d4 doesn't lose by force, Elroch?
Of course we can, if we wish to be. We can also be sure that we will be alive in 24 hours time. In both cases, our belief is reasonable probably right, and may be confirmed by the facts in the future, but certainty cannot be justified right now.
I can see why it is difficult for a chess player without substantial familiarity with the general truths about all inductive knowledge not to understand this, and that is to be expected. What it amounts to is a poor estimate of a probability in a way that is qualitatively extremely wrong, but pragmatically unlikely to matter.
Due to the difficulty, I have on several occasions attempted to lead people through the non-technical sequences of thoughts that make the result clear, but I am well aware that many people - especially when they are not young - have no real interest in replacing long-held erroneous ideas with correct ones.
We can dispense with the rest because it enlarges on the core mistake.
<<What it amounts to is a poor estimate of a probability in a way that is qualitatively extremely wrong, but pragmatically unlikely to matter.>>
Discussing 1. d4, you seem to see its results as probabilistic.
That's all it takes for me to realise you are unfamiliar with Bayesian probability (the only type of relevance here) where probabilities quantify belief states. Certainty is a probability of 1 or 0, but is only appropriate for propositions that can be deduced from known facts.
So it's simply a fact that quantifying belief about a proposition is probabilistic, only simplifying to boolean logic when the line of inference is deductive from known facts.
We have the same difficulty in quantum mechanics, as I once tried to explain but you failed to grasp it at that time. We accept that probability plays a fundamental part in QM. Is a fundamental entity a particle or a wave? What does wave mean?
Glad to help. A wave function is a mathematical model that obeys a specific law describing how it evolves over time. It is closely related to belief about the state of the system (technically being an integral of complex-weighted eigenfunctions, typically position eigenstates. Momentum eigenstates provide a dual representation).
If we see an entity as existing in a place at a time, we can see probability regarding its position as a waveform. But is that waveform a conceptual idea of our minds or is it intrinsic to the entity when it manifests as a waveform? Could it even be both?
To reiterate, it's a mathematical model that determines everything we believe about the state of a quantum mechanical system and how that belief evolves over time.
We can now leave that indeterminate, because it doesn't apply to 1.d4. The question is "can we be sure that 1. d4 isn't a forced loss for white?" You are suggesting that there's a probability attached to that in such a way that the optimal outcome is represented by a probability.
Yes, remember Bayesian probability uses probabilities to quantify belief states.
But that is a function of the estimated possible error in the machine and algorithms which determine it, or are supposed to. Probability does not exist intrinsically in 1. d4 and its optimum outcome with best play by both sides. It is either one thing or another. A forced win, a forced loss or a draw.
Yes. Like the toss of a coin is a head or a tail. And before it is tossed our belief state might be (half head, half tail).
And that is why your attempt at explaining your belief that we can never be entirely sure fails.
I NEVER said "never". We can be sure once the coin is tossed or the game solved.
It's like agnosticism in religion. Maybe YOU cannot be sure but others believe they can, one way or another. How? The use of reason. Reason used correctly and well. There is no intrinsic probability attached to either matter and so any attempt to use that as an explanatory device is doomed to failure. The probability (or lack of complete certainty) exists in your mind. And that is all.
Bayesian probability is indeed about state of belief in situations involving uncertainty. And it is, as Jaynes said, "the logic of science".
Blind belief is like taking a prior that is certain. It can be done: it's just not optimal. [Note that in terms of quantifying accuracy of beliefs in terms of cross entropy, being certain and turning out to be wrong is infinitely costly. It is much wises to be almost certain, which costs virtually nothing if you are right and costs a finite amount if you are wrong.