Most of us, myself included, agree it's a draw, but also realize that neither the strongest human players nor the best contemporary engines can irrefutably demonstrate that this is true.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Asserting anything about the distant future is wholly misguided, with the exception of this statement.
Jan 31, 2023
0
#6024
The only constant is change. Mais, plus sa change, plus c'est la meme chose.
@8203
"making an assumption that black's moves are perfect/good"
++ No assumption is needed:
it becomes certain when the black moves lead to a 7-men endgame table base draw,
or a prior 3-fold repetition.
@8204
"both are relevant, because you dont know which one draws, wins, or loses. you choose one,
and if that one fails, you have to check the other"
++ 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.
Yes, if 1 e4 e5 were to fail, then 1 e4 c5 would have to be checked, but that is not realistic.
You cannot find any white win after 1 e4 e5.
@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.
Feb 1, 2023
0
#6028
" '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.
Feb 1, 2023
0
#6029
"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.
Feb 1, 2023
0
#6030
Optimissed wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
shangtsung111 wrote:
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.
Feb 1, 2023
0
#6035
" 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.
Feb 1, 2023
0
#6040
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
hikaru says also draw but he is very confident.when they asked he says" just we know it"
its extremely statistically likely.