@7257
"So what fraction of a point do you get out of it in your solution?"
++ There are only 3 outcomes of a Chess game: either draw, win, or loss.
A tempo up in the initial position is worth 1/3 pawn, as known from gambits.
It takes an advantage of 1 pawn or more to win a game of Chess.
That is also why 1 Na3 e5 2 Rb1 is still a draw: white can afford to lose 2 tempi.
@7257
"So what fraction of a point do you get out of it in your solution?"
++ There are only 3 outcomes of a Chess game: either draw, win, or loss.
Depending on the rules.
According to FIDE competition rules, if you agree a draw simultaneously with your opponent resigning you both win and draw. That is a different outcome from any of the three you mention.
Before you go about solving chess you need a set of rules that can be solved. Your statement
We are talking about solving chess, i.e. the game with all its Laws of Chess.
doesn't do that. Neither does your refusal to decide whether the 50 move rule is in or out or whether we have a 2-fold, 3-fold or 5-fold repetition rule, whether the ICCF tablebase adjudication applies or the TCEC win and draw rules or neither etc, etc.
It is not too difficult to produce a set or sets of rules that is or are capable of solution. It might be a good idea to do that before telling us you will solve chess, otherwise you definitely won't. You could also then tell us which version or versions you propose to solve.
If you manage to settle on a set of rules that has just the three outcomes you mention and your opponent, should you win, draw or lose respectively loses, draws and wins then your statement
++ No. The first move is an advantage, but not enough to win.
is nonsense. If it's not enough to win, it's not an advantage; full stop.
A tempo up in the initial position is worth 1/3 pawn, as known from gambits.
I wouldn't have thought there's much you can do with 1/3 pawn - how would it move? Would it even stand up?
Since you've already had it off the big red telephone that all gambits lose, presumable it's worth is negative.
It takes an advantage of 1 pawn or more to win a game of Chess.
Again depending on the rules. Under FIDE rules it just takes checkmate or a resignation by your opponent (plus sundry other things under competition rules, but pawns don't come into it).
That is also why 1 Na3 e5 2 Rb1 is still a draw: white can afford to lose 2 tempi.
Posting your draw against SF15 could go some way to giving you some credibility, but only some given that SF15 struggles with some king and rook v king positions.
(Are you going to offer the use of your big red telephone to anyone who might want to check your solution by the way? You can't say a game is solved until the solution has been independently checked.)
Any decent chess player should understand that winning a game of chess is an advantage of an infinite amount of material. Crude heuristics based on piece counts have statistical value but zero deductive value.
@7255
"the first move may actually be a disadvantage"
++ No. The first move is an advantage, but not enough to win.
Not proven. You keep forgetting to add "I think" or "in my opinion" to your proclamations.
@7255
"the first move may actually be a disadvantage"
++ No. The first move is an advantage, but not enough to win.
Not proven. You keep forgetting to add "I think" or "in my opinion" to your proclamations.
They're not proclamations. They're pronouncements.
Not at all, once you accept the validity of a formal system of logic. From there, the process is entirely deductive and can be (and has been in many cases) implemented as a sequence of boolean operations.
That is the role of axioms. For chess the rules are the basis of the axioms.
Axioms are the true propositions you start with. Without any, no deduction could take place.
Do you think you know the rules of basic chess? Or would you say you remain uncertain about them?
Even if there is some ambiguity of the rules, we all understand that you can only solve chess with some specified set of rules - there is no game called chess where the rules are ambiguous.
[Note that this is an example of the extremely common psychological error that people think a word - eg chess - is fundamental and meaningful. In truth it is the concepts associated with words that are fundamental and meaningful. Words are in the large majority of cases context-dependent references to solid concepts used for brevity (rather than using the entire formal definition every time). In the case of chess, the word refers to the abstract games associated with several rule sets, as well as the human activity with some other variable rules associated with real-world implementation of the abstract game].
... there is no game called chess where the rules are ambiguous...
False. @tygxc has one.
I personally see chess as a type of game, within which rules and so on are subject to change. Reading your post #7272 I agree with it except for where you suggest that many people associate chess with a specific set of rules. I haven't asked them.
Quite simply, what I mean is that the word "chess" has been associated with various different abstract games (for the purpose of solving say) over history (not to mention in different places - eg, the precise version of the rules in operation on a server is likely not quite the same as in an OTB tournament).
something really bothers me about solving chess.lets say its achieved
and lets assume its draw.is computer going to play for draw everytime?no its going to play for a win'
because if it plays for a draw with perfect play,black's best moves as computer play can easily be memorized.so everyone will play those moves and draw
against all powerful computer all the time.so it wont play perfect and return to regular stockfish again.
The reasoning of someone who doesn't understand chess... not surprising, coming from you.
thats why if someday somehow computers solve it completely ,still it may even play some lines where it knows with perfect play it will lose.so there may be no difference at all.
Whether or not chess is a draw with best play, the number of perfect games will be astronomical. Only a very ignorant person would talk as if the raw solution will be something useful for humans.
Off the top of my head this is obvious for 3 completely different reasons (there may be many more), all 3 of which would be obvious to any experienced player, and at least one of which should be familiar to most players who aren't beginners.
if its astronomical true.but it may not be
There is a simple proof it will be enormous... namely in the EGTBs we already have.
I would think it's possible to make an opening book long enough to reach to the point that a tablebase could take over. If that counts, then there ya go. (?)
2 things.
first, Go is much more complex than chess. it took 20 years after deep blue to get the same level for AlphaGo.
second, a massive number of permutations doesnt necessarily mean that something cant be solved. checkers had 10 ^20 and was still solved. of course, chess is much much more complex, but the big number alone should dissuade us.
2 things.
first, Go is much more complex than chess. it took 20 years after deep blue to get the same level for AlphaGo.
second, a massive number of permutations doesnt necessarily mean that something cant be solved. checkers had 10 ^20 and was still solved. of course, chess is much much more complex, but the big number alone should dissuade us.
Your premise assumes that the efforts put into beating the world champs for Chess and Go were the same. This is not the case. Solving Chess was much better PR for IBM than solving Go would have been, so a lot more resources were brought to bear.
In terms of actually solving, IIRC Go has more positions...but evaluating Go positions should take less CPU horsepower than evaluating Chess positions.
@7245
"weak and strong solutions for solving games are defined by their outcomes and the application of results" ++ Yes, that is true.
'weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition'
'strongly solved is being used for a game for which such a strategy has been determined for all legal positions.'
The outcome is a strategy, i.e. a set of moves like Checkers, or a set of rules like Connect Four, or a combination, which is most likely.
"not by their methodology" ++ That is true too. The calculation of the time to either strongly or weakly solve Chess does not depend on how it is done. People here keep making the error of taking the time to strongly solve chess as the time to weakly solve chess.
I have not only calculated the time to weakly solve chess, i.e. 5 years,
but also presented a methodology of how to do it.