"No: the grandmasters chose the best candidate to draw as black disregarding all alternatives. If a 7-men endgame table base draw or a 3-fold repetition is reached in all lines,
then in retrospect the selected black move was right."
you assume that thats whats going to happen.
hikaru says also draw but he is very confident.when they asked he says" just we know it"
its extremely statistically likely.
Since the word "statistically" adds nothing of value, you're saying that in your opinion, it isn't certain but it's extremely unlikely that chess is not a draw.
IMO it's down to personality types. Some people prefer to commit themselves more than others. Different ways of thinking, one of which is not "better" than the other. Committing oneself, in general, can lead to very positive results. Not doing so tends to avoid negative results.
at the moment its not *just* my opinion that it is extremely unlikely that chess is not a draw.
its based on the game databases and programs that we already have. conditional probability.
@8215
"that doesnt mean anything"
++ It means that a renowned mathematician regards a theorem as completely certain without proof.
Likewise Chess being a draw is completely certain.
@8216
"you assume that thats whats going to happen"
++ I am sure that is what is going to happen. As calculated there will be at most 1 error in 10^20 positions and there are only 10^17 positions, so 0 error expected in the procedure.
Anyway, if a white win were found in a line, then and only then a black move needs retracting.
Besides, theoretically it were possible to weakly solve Chess with just a generator of legal moves, without any provisional evaluation at all by a Monte-Carlo method.
Select a random white legal move, select a random black response and so on until a 7-men endgam table base position, or a 3-fold repetition, or a checkmate, or a stalemate.
If white wins, then retact the last black move.
If black wins or draws, then retract the last white move.
Continue until the initial position.
Chess is weakly solved then.
It is theoretically possible, but would take more time than the proposed method to use Stockfish to generate better than random moves.
do you know how many games of chess are possible
I appreciate the information and advice you have shared.
" I am sure that is what is going to happen. As calculated there will be at most 1 error in 10^20 positions and there are only 10^17 positions, so 0 error expected in the procedure."
that hasnt been calculated lmao
@8224
"that hasnt been calculated"
++ This HAS been calculated
Figure 2
1 s / move: 11.8% decisive games
1 min / move: 2.1% decisive games
Extrapolating:
1 h / move: 2.1% * 2.1 / 11.8 = 0.4% decisive games
60 h / move: 2.1% * (2.1 / 11.8)² = 0.07% decisive games
Converting to 17 s at 10^9 nodes/s and assuming 100 positions/game:
1 error in 10^5 positions
Hence 1 occurence in 10^20 positions that the table base exact move is not among the top 4 engine moves.
@8226
"disagree with statement ...regards a theorem as completely certain without proof"
It is a fact that the famous mathematician Euler - after thinking about it - regarded Goldbach's conjecture as a completely certain theorem without a proof. He wrote that.
Provability is a higher degree of truth.
@8222
"do you know how many games of chess are possible
++ Labelle has calculated between 10^29241 and 10^34082 games.
There are 10^44 legal positions.
Of these 10^17 are relevant to weakly solving Chess.
@8320
Euler never saw Vinogradov's theorem either, but he might have reasoned along those lines.
If Euler was allowed to regard Goldbach's conjecture as a completely certain theorem without a formal proof, then so can we regard Chess as a draw without a formal proof based on all the available evidence.
DEAR OP,
This is your 15 minutes of fame, congratulations. 👏 👏
I don’t know how you did it, but this lame thread just won’t die. Chess will never be solved, just like Jazz will never be solved.
I will honor you with a quote:
“Talking about music is like dancing about go f*** yourself” -TROLLKING
@8224
"that hasnt been calculated"
++ This HAS been calculated
Figure 2
1 s / move: 11.8% decisive games
1 min / move: 2.1% decisive games
Extrapolating:
1 h / move: 2.1% * 2.1 / 11.8 = 0.4% decisive games
60 h / move: 2.1% * (2.1 / 11.8)² = 0.07% decisive games
Converting to 17 s at 10^9 nodes/s and assuming 100 positions/game:
1 error in 10^5 positions
Hence 1 occurence in 10^20 positions that the table base exact move is not among the top 4 engine moves.
The demented parrot strikes again!
I'll repeat what I wrote in post #7503:
++ I have even quantified the error rate: 1 error in 10^5 positions for a 10^9 nodes/s engine calculating 17 s/move.
The flaws in your method have already been pointed out.
You say here
Your desktop is 1000 times slower than a cloud engine of 10^9 nodes/s. Time * 60 gives 5.6 times less error.
If you were to look at these games as you steadfastly refuse to do, you will notice that four of them were played at 37 mins. per move. According to your figures, 17 sec. per move on your cloud engine is equivalent to about seven and a half times the time I allocated on my desktop, so according to your "calculation" these games should have 1 half point blunder in around 42,500 ply.
The four games have a total of 290 ply so according to your "calculation", the expected total number of half point blunders in the games is about 0.007.
User @cobra91 has carefully checked the actual total with the Syzygy tablebase here. It comes to 11.
YOUR CALCULATIONS DON'T WORK. CAN YOU STOP POSTING THEM, PLEASE?
The answer is obviously ++No.
Again, it's a matter of personal conviction and, probably, personality type. This is the second time I've typed this within 24 hours. But a personality type that chooses to avoid certainty may well avoid the worst errors, whilst a personality type that chooses to judge as if it is with certainty may make an error but stands much more chance of far greater success. One personality type is not right and the other wrong. Therefore, it is perfectly correct to claim that we know that chess is a draw.
Except that in this case any person's willingness to "take a risk" with their conclusion is, in fact, wrong, by definition. This topic is not about whether chess is a draw. It's about whether it can be proven to be a draw. The answer is no, for the foreseeable future of humanity.
Scroll up to the top of page. Now read the thread title. Do you see the word "draw"?
@8208
"hikaru says also draw but he is very confident. when they asked he says we just know it"
++ 'That ... every even integer is a sum of two primes,
I regard as a completely certain theorem, although I cannot prove it.' - Euler
Still considered true, still unproven.
Where did Euler say that?
Basically it can't be proven to be a draw deductively. But we know it's a draw and that isn't a guess.
You probably wouldn't understand that.
...
Few rational people would.
Dumb question I suppose. Let’s say chess is solved by a super computer. Does it change anything for us? We can’t even figure out how to beat a sub optimal stockfish.
Yes I'm sure that's correct. You have to be intelligent too.
No, you just have to use words in a different way from everybody else, as you claim the right to do. In this case you use the word "know" to refer to the concept that others refer to as "guess".
Not sure what you use "guess* for, given that you say you know and it isn't a guess. Probably if you have paranormal abilities you can mean the same and different things in one sentence.
Dumb question I suppose. Let’s say chess is solved by a super computer. Does it change anything for us? We can’t even figure out how to beat a sub optimal stockfish.
That would depend on whether the solution is a relatively short win or not.
If it turns out to be forced win in say less than a hundred moves it would be possible to follow and we may as well all give up playing.
If it turns out to be a draw or a win in 2000 moves it would make very little difference,. Youl'd just get different opening theory with a lot more lines, but it would be impossible to follow for any great number of moves,
" 'That ... every even integer is a sum of two primes,
I regard as a completely certain theorem, although I cannot prove it.' - Euler"
yeah, but that doesnt mean anything.