@7859
"1 example isnt a proof."
++ If white plays differently, then white loses faster than in 83 moves.
prove it. does stockfish say M83?
<<The problem is we also need a solution for the irrelevant ones>>
Not at all. We need a solution for the fuzzy boundary between the relevant positions and the irrelevant ones. Because it is impossible to determine on sight which are relevant and which are not. I've been trying to explain this for years.
We have definitions for the solution of games. What is your definition for the solution of a fuzzy boundary?
For that matter what is you definition of a fuzzy boundary?
Your problem is that you don't know that all this has been gone through earlier and you aren't presenting anything new. That would be ok, except that you're telling others that you're the first one to refute tygxc and you're making other empty boasts. I'm not even the first one to see the mistakes others have been making, when they imagine they have it all perfect and pat.
I have on several occasions in the past accused you of having difficulty reading. I have to retract that. It seems that you find it easy to read far more than is actually written.
@7864
"the simplification happens before and during the solving process, not as a result of it."
++ You misunderstand. There are 2 simplifications in Checkers: transition tables and irreversibility. Most moves in Checkers are irreversible, only moves by promoted Kings are reversible. Checkers needs transition tables too. Most moves in Chess are reversible: only pawn moves and captures are reversible.
"1. e4 isnt known as the best move, it is simply the first guess of the solving processes."
++ 19 of all 20 possible first moves lead to draws, except 1 g4? loses by force. The moves 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4 and 1 Nf3 oppose more to the draw: make it harder for black to draw.
@7859
"1 example isnt a proof."
++ If white plays differently, then white loses faster than in 83 moves.
"do you understand what it means to meet the mathematical standard of proof?"
++ Yes, much more than any here.
whats absolutely hilarious is that i did a basic game review and found that white survives at least 85 moves.
@7864
"the simplification happens before and during the solving process, not as a result of it."
++ You misunderstand. There are 2 simplifications in Checkers: transition tables and irreversibility. Most moves in Checkers are irreversible, only moves by promoted Kings are reversible. Checkers needs transition tables too. Most moves in Chess are reversible: only pawn moves and captures are reversible.
"1. e4 isnt known as the best move, it is simply the first guess of the solving processes."
++ 19 of all 20 possible first moves lead to draws, except 1 g4? loses by force. The moves 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4 and 1 Nf3 oppose more to the draw: make it harder for black to draw.
none of those are proven mathematically.
you reallllly dont know what it means to mathematically prove something.
if g4 loses by force, whats the number of moves until mate?
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?
What you call the confusing stuff confuses only you.
What you call clearer terms confuses everybody else.
So you can use your clearer terms so long as you don't expect anyone to talk to you.
@7869
"you reallllly dont know what it means to mathematically prove something."
++ I know that better than any here.
"if g4 loses by force, whats the number of moves until mate?"
++ 63 moves until a 7-men endgame table base loss.
@7868
"i did a basic game review and found that white survives at least 85 moves"
++ Show your game, I will show your error.
So now you agree with the obvious fact that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white and hence does not need any consideration? 83 or 85 is basically the same: a loss.
@7859
"1 example isnt a proof."
++ If white plays differently, then white loses faster than in 83 moves.
"do you understand what it means to meet the mathematical standard of proof?"
++ Yes, much more than any here.
whats absolutely hilarious is that i did a basic game review and found that white survives at least 85 moves.
I used exactly @tygxc's method to "prove" it's mate in 2 (for White).
@7868
"i did a basic game review and found that white survives at least 85 moves"
++ Show your game, I will show your error.
So now you agree with the obvious fact that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white and hence does not need any consideration? 83 or 85 is basically the same: a loss.
You failed to prove any error in my "proof" showing it's it's mate in 2 for White using the same method as your own proof.
Exactly the same method (just as stupid).
"if g4 loses by force, whats the number of moves until mate?"
++ 63 moves until a 7-men endgame table base loss.
Your method again below; exactly the same (just as stupid).
@7869
"you reallllly dont know what it means to mathematically prove something."
++ I know that better than any here.
"if g4 loses by force, whats the number of moves until mate?"
++ 63 moves until a 7-men endgame table base loss.
thats not the correct moves. why do you keep giving incorrect moves and act like you just proved it?
"So now you agree with the obvious fact that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white and hence does not need any consideration? 83 or 85 is basically the same: a loss."
the whole point is that you are unable to prove your claim was correct.
like with g4, you didnt show that 2. a4, 2. b4, 2. c4, 2. d4, 2. e4, 2. f4, 2. g5, 2. h4 lost. you only showed that that specific combination lost.
z5 g8 h6 ke1 checkmate
@7823
"I would recommend reading the wikipedia article on solving chess."
++ That is no good source. It even starts by misquoting its own reference.
"get it from the experts" ++ Prof. van den Herik is an expert. Wikipedia authors are not.
Prof. van den Herik also starts by misquoting his own reference.
If you're looking for a good definition of weakly solved so you can completely ignore it, Allis is quoted by both and doesn't quote anyone - ergo can't misquote anyone,
"So now you agree with the obvious fact that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white and hence does not need any consideration? 83 or 85 is basically the same: a loss."
the whole point is that you are unable to prove your claim was correct.
like with g4, you didnt show that 2. a4, 2. b4, 2. c4, 2. d4, 2. e4, 2. f4, 2. g5, 2. h4 lost. you only showed that that specific combination lost.
Regarding something as obvious as 2. Ba6 losing and you claim that it has to be proven, I believe it has been proven already but really that isn't the point, since a good chess player will know beyond doubt that it loses and so a proof that it loses isn't necessary. There isn't any need for a proof and it would be a waste of time and effort except as an academic exercise.
Elroch also believes that we don't know that 2. Ba6 loses. That's a misunderstanding of the meaning of knowledge. I can show why knowledge cannot depend entirely on deduction. If all proof depends on deduction then it's impossible to prove the correctness of much of our knowledge.
I'm glad you and I are getting on so well now.
ba6 has not been proven yet to be losing. although i wouldnt be surprised of we manage it in a few years.
"If all proof depends on deduction then it's impossible to prove the correctness of much of our knowledge."
this is VERY VERY VERY TRUE.
however, with chess, we have a lot of axioms, so deduction isnt too bad. we can hold a chess proof to a higher standard than an everyday 'proof'
this is something that txgyc misses. its not good enough to be 99% confident to consider something solved.
my opinion on whether chess will ever be solved is that we will have extreme confidence, but not proof - we will all be able to agree that chess is a draw, loss, or win, but wont be able to prove it to a 'solved' standard.
I would be rather surprised if it hasn't been proven to lose. Since you're so keen on proving everything, where is your proof that it hasn't been proven to lose? Do you have one? If not, why are you criticising others?
i dont have a proof of math standard that there isnt a proof out there (in fact, such a feat would be impossible), but I am proposing a lack of knowledge, which is falsifiable. I will happily admit being wrong if you can find one, but you have to find one first.
I used the onboard chess.com engine to show that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses for white. It took me about five minutes. I captured with the pawn, which is logically stronger than the knight capture even if some engines disagree and then I deliberately made one substandard move for black, which was to defend e5 with Bd6, blocking the [awn on d7. Even so, black systematically improved the advantage over white and after ten or so moves, black's advantage was shown as about 4.5. There was nothing visible that even hinted that white could turn it round. Proof enough for me and probably for anyone who isn't unreasonable.
ah but you see, math is VERY UNREASONABLE.
I used the onboard chess.com engine to show that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses for white. It took me about five minutes. I captured with the pawn, which is logically stronger than the knight capture even if some engines disagree and then I deliberately made one substandard move for black, which was to defend e5 with Bd6, blocking the [awn on d7. Even so, black systematically improved the advantage over white and after ten or so moves, black's advantage was shown as about 4.5. There was nothing visible that even hinted that white could turn it round. Proof enough for me and probably for anyone who isn't unreasonable.
Would that be the chess.com engine that scores the Nalimov tablebase 66.9 with just a couple of pawns on each side in a simple mate in 34? (Rybka playing both sides had access to the Nalimov tablebase in the game reviewed below.)
If it took you less than five minutes to win after 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6, then you either mated in less than ten moves or gave it less than 30 seconds per move. Which? Can you still prove it with 2 hours for 40 moves, repeating?
@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.
you have several misunderstandings.
the simplification happens before and during the solving process, not as a result of it.
1. e4 isnt known as the best move, it is simply the first guess of the solving processes. if chess can be weakly solved from there, great!. but we dont know that yet. a similar thing was also done for checkers.