you still need to prove to me that black doesnt win.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
@7829
"checkers had simplification in addition to chinook. " ++ What simplification? Transition tables?
"weak is not all reasonable moves, it is all moves." ++ If the good white moves cannot win, then the bad white moves cannot win either. It is pointless to explore 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?
"it is most certainly a math error" ++ No there is no math error.
Sqrt (10^37 * 10 / 10,000) = 10^17 relevant positions.
Jan 27, 2023
0
#5784
tygxc wrote:
@7829
"weak is not all reasonable moves, it is all moves." ++ If the good white moves cannot win, then the bad white moves cannot win either. It is pointless to explore 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6
you just made another error.
you need to prove Ba6 is bad before you can discard it.
@7835
"I propose that that Tempo is actually a disadvantage."
++ It is easy to disprove that by strategy stealing.
If 1 e4 c5 were a black win, then 1 c3 e5 2 c4 would be a white win.
If 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 were a black win, then 1 Nf3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 d3 Nc6 4 d4 would be a white win.
For all possible black wins you can propose there is a corresponding white win.
Jan 27, 2023
0
#5786
Optimissed wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@7829
"weak is not all reasonable moves, it is all moves." ++ If the good white moves cannot win, then the bad white moves cannot win either. It is pointless to explore 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6
you just made another error.
you need to prove Ba6 is bad before you can discard it.
No you don't, actually. 2. Ba6 definitely loses and any good chess player knows that after looking at the position for a few minutes. The opinions of very weak players are irrelevant.
okay, prove it. prove it objectively. 100%.
Jan 27, 2023
0
#5787
tygxc wrote:
@7835
"I propose that that Tempo is actually a disadvantage."
++ It is easy to disprove that by strategy stealing.
If 1 e4 c5 were a black win, then 1 c3 e5 2 c4 would be a white win.
If 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 were a black win, then 1 Nf3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 d3 Nc6 4 d4 would be a white win.
For all possible black wins you can propose there is a corresponding white win.
you cant just give two examples and claim you have a full strategy stealing proof.
fun fact, that proof doesnt exist.
Jan 27, 2023
0
#5788
you have to prove that every position that black reaches could also be reached by white.
Jan 27, 2023
0
#5790
tygxc wrote:
@7829
"checkers had simplification in addition to chinook. " ++ What simplification? Transition tables?
"weak is not all reasonable moves, it is all moves." ++ If the good white moves cannot win, then the bad white moves cannot win either. It is pointless to explore 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6?
"it is most certainly a math error" ++ No there is no math error.
Sqrt (10^37 * 10 / 10,000) = 10^17 relevant positions.
"Taking Three as the subject to reason about--
A convenient number to state--
We add Seven, and Ten, and then multiply out
By One Thousand diminished by Eight.
"The result we proceed to divide, as you see,
By Nine Hundred and Ninety Two:
Then subtract Seventeen, and the answer must be
Exactly and perfectly true.
Lewis Carroll was an expert on logic who published numerous peer reviewed articles on the subject, so I think we can safely assume his method is superior to yours.
There are 3 x 10^0 relevant positions.
The problem is we also need a solution for the irrelevant ones.
Jan 27, 2023
0
#5792
here is an image demonstrating the simplification that checkers had/has. it's "relevant search space" now, with chess, we cant prove what is relevant or not yet. we can make guesses, and in the case of if it was the case that white would have a draw/win those guesses would speed up the algorithm somewhat, but they are still guesses and can be wrong.
Jan 27, 2023
0
#5793
Optimissed wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
i am willing to bet money i dont even have on this, are you?
I would bet millions if I didn't have any money.
making clear, im saying that i am willing to bet money i do not have on the statement that we have not proved that black cannot win every single game.
Jan 27, 2023
0
#5794
Optimissed wrote:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<<<Solving chess consists of 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). It also means more generally solving chess-like games (i.e. combinatorial games of perfect information), such as Capablanca chess and infinite chess. According to Zermelo's theorem, a determinable optimal strategy must exist for chess and chess-like games.>>>
Here, strategy is being used in a different context or with a different meaning from how it is being used in this forum, where strategy seems to represent a permutation of moves. It's incorrect and confusing to call a series of moves a strategy, when it merely consists of finding the best moves available. The strategy is to find the best moves.
In the wiki article, strategy seems to be used differently in that an assumption is made that there is an optimal manner of pursuing the game of chess. That simply isn't true, because if chess is a draw by force, there will be myriads of lines that lead to a draw with best play by both sides. The assumption that there is exactly one drawing line and all the rest are wins is ridiculous. Since there's no evidence for it, we have to go by probability theory, which gives approximately zero chance of that being true. Therefore, the lines that are "best" will be those which are to the taste of individual players. Individual preference.
I don't know what this Zermelo's theory is and I'm going to look it up. I think it cannot possibly be relevant to chess and it is evident that the Wiki article isn't written by experts. Maybe it's based on out-of-date ideas from 25 or 50 years ago.
btw to clear some confusion there can be more than one "optimal" strategy as long as said strategy leads to the desired/predicted outcome.
Jan 27, 2023
0
#5795
math terms be kinda funky and i can understand why you might have interpreted them like that. yes, "optimal play" is a singular noun, but math people dont care about stuff like that.
@7845
"prove it"
++ Checkmate in 83.
Jan 27, 2023
0
#5797
tygxc wrote:
@7845
"prove it"
++ Checkmate in 83.
1 example isnt a proof.
i apologize for being out of pocket, but do you understand what it means to meet the mathematical standard of proof?
I really dont think you do. im starting to understand optimissed's vast frustrations.
@7851
"here is an image demonstrating the simplification that checkers had"
++ For Chess a similar simplification results from weakly solving it.
"it's relevant search space"
++ A similar relevant seach space emerges while weakly solving Chess.
For example after 1 e4 no position with a white pawn on e2 will be relevant after that.
"with chess, we cant prove what is relevant or not yet"
++ For Checkers that was not known in advance either.
Jan 27, 2023
0
#5799
Optimissed wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
math terms be kinda funky and i can understand why you might have interpreted them like that. yes, "optimal play" is a singular noun, but math people dont care about stuff like that.
The "math person" I know best of all is my son, who is quite probably more qualified in maths than all the people commenting here, certainly including myself. However, he is literate. Language is logically constructed and so someone who thinks a singular term is a plural isn't necessarily logical enough to be a mathematician. However, I reject all the terms used here. For the purpose of solving, there is only good play and bad play. Good play is any move that doesn't change the game state and bad play is any move that changes the game state. The game state is the forced result by best play from both sides at any point in the game (any position).
Are you reasonably happy with that? Can I get away with rejecting all the confusing stuff and using clearer terms?
oh yeah of course. on the wikipedia page, "optimal play" = what you call "good play"
@7833
"wikipedia articles get fact checked and peer reviewed"
++ No, not at all. They get edited by amateurs.
that wikipedia is innaccurate and untrustworthy is actually a myth. are the sources to be checked and taken with a grain of salt? yes. but that doesnt make wikipedia incredibly reliable.