I'm accepting the first one as it clearly referred to a purported following deductive argument. Of course nothing that could be mistaken for a deductive argument by a sleeping blind man followed.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
tygxc wrote:
The game-theoretic value of a draw also follows from a deductive argument wrong. To win you need to queen a pawn wrong, i.e. you need an advantage of 1 pawn or more wrong. 3 tempi in the initial position are worth 1 pawn. 1 tempo in the initial position is not enough to win. You cannot queen a tempo.
Prize competition
Find as many errors as possible in the quoted text.
The one who finds the most will receive a magnificent trophy.
There are only three obvious errors. I would say that the rest of it's ok but not, of course, as part of a deductive argiment. There were 3 logical errors.
You first "wrong" is not necessarily valid. The conclusion is merely unproven. If, as you appear to "know", chess happens to be a draw (whichever version) then that would certainly follow from a deductive argument (though not from the rest of what @tygxc posts). It could be rather a long deductive argument.
The first "wrong" is correct, because there's no deductive argument that concludes that chess is a draw, since the general belief that it's a draw comes from experience. If there were a deductive argument, this thread would be pointless. Well, ok it's pointless already but even more so.
OK we could do this:
1) If all experience leads us to accept something as true then is is true.
2) All experience in chess leads us to accept that chess is a draw with best play by both sides.
3) Therefore chess is a draw etc.
That's a valid, deductive argument, one of the premises of which is untrue. It's still valid but it's incorrect as a deductive argument because we cannot support (1). Any longer, more complex or more convoluted deductive argument would amount to the same thing. There's an American guy who is famous for Ontological arguments that Something or Other exists and I'm sure he could slip in a smuggled premise or manage to change the meaning of "draw", gradually over a stream of about a dozen cunningly constructed premises, nine of which are completely irrelevant to a proper argument.
Optimissed wrote:
1) If all experience leads us to accept something as true then is is true.
2) All experience in chess leads us to accept that chess is a draw with best play by both sides.
3) Therefore chess is a draw etc.
That's a valid, deductive argument, one of the premises of which is untrue. It's still valid but it's incorrect as a deductive argument because we cannot support (1).
This is an excellent and logically unassailable argument against players that "know" chess is a forced draw 
. Kudos.
Thankyou.
I know it's a draw but I don't pretend I obtained the knowledge by deduction, except of course by MAR's "long and involved, deductive argument", which is a point he made that I do accept but which, I think, boils down to the simple three-liner I gave. Since I know that a proper, deductive argument cannot be constructed but since I also believe that "chess is a draw" is highly confirmed enough to be called knowledge, then I therefore accept that not all knowledge is obtained by deduction.
That seems obviously true, since deduction must rest on premises considered to be true. Therefore, if we can't know things that aren't the product of deduction but also if all deduction must ultimately deal with or rest upon propositions that aren't obtained by deduction, then we can never know anything in any case, so we might as well redefine "know" as something that actually occurs in human experience. Otherwise we're talking about nothing.
Oct 14, 2022
0
#6028
I like the fact that the last time @tygxc mentioned a "deductive argument" he immediately moved on to blatantly inductive imprecise ideas such as those about the value of tempos, as if they were axioms.
[Isn't your post about his argument, not MAR's?]
Elroch wrote:
I like the fact that the last time @tygxc mentioned a "deductive argument" he immediately moved on to blatantly inductive imprecise ideas such as those about the value of tempos, as if they were axioms.
[Isn't your post about his argument, not MAR's?]
I mentioned MAR's comment on tygxc's confusion and thought it fairly good but it would be better still, in my opinion, if it were officially recognised that the only strategy so far as solving chess goes is to try to play good moves. So it's pseudo-intellectual claptrap.
Oct 14, 2022
0
#6030
Optimissed wrote:
OK we could do this:
1) If all experience leads us to accept something as true then is is true.
2) All experience in chess leads us to accept that chess is a draw with best play by both sides.
3) Therefore chess is a draw etc.
That's a valid, deductive argument, one of the premises of which is untrue. It's still valid but it's incorrect as a deductive argument because we cannot support (1).
Or (2).
We have no experience of chess with best play by both sides from the starting position, so no reason to accept any particular result from experience.
Argument's OK (for once).
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
OK we could do this:
1) If all experience leads us to accept something as true then is is true.
2) All experience in chess leads us to accept that chess is a draw with best play by both sides.
3) Therefore chess is a draw etc.
That's a valid, deductive argument, one of the premises of which is untrue. It's still valid but it's incorrect as a deductive argument because we cannot support (1).
Or (2).
We have no experience of chess with best play by both sides from the starting position, so no reason to accept any particular result from experience.
You say "no reason" so you already went wrong. The explorers of old had "no reason" to think the North Pole was towards the North. They should have looked everywhere.
Oct 14, 2022
0
#6032
It wouldn't have been called the North pole if it was in Timbuctu. (Or more correctly Timbuctu would have been to the North if that was where it was.)
MARattigan wrote:
It wouldn't have been called the North pole if it was in Timbuctu. (Or more correctly Timbuctu would have been to the North if that was where it was.)
It was called the North Pole because a Polish explorer in 1257 had a theory that the shortest way to India was if you travelled to the North and kept on going. No-one knew what became of him because he froze to death. Could have been anywhere because, by coincidence, a guy in Timbuctu owed him some money and he was going to call there first to buy warm weather clothing with it. Because India's warm.
However, the intention of <<You say "no reason" so you already went wrong. The explorers of old had "no reason" to think the North Pole was towards the North. They should have looked everywhere>> was to mimic the idea that we have no reason to believe chess is a draw and that to "solve" it we have to test things like 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 because it might win for white.
Suppose stuff like that is beyond you lot.
Oct 14, 2022
0
#6036
In 1257 most "knowledgeable experts" didn't know that the earth revolved on it's axis and orbited the sun. And if this nameless "explorer" went north from Poland to get to Timbuktu I wouldn't put much stock in anything they thought.
You'll be saying they thought it was flat next, which they obviously didn't or the Phoenicians and then the Vikings wouldn't have discovered America.
Oct 14, 2022
0
#6038
As usual, no defence to the actual statement. Why couldn't someone discover America without knowing that the earth was round? The Phoenicians never discovered America. They were too afraid of getting lost forever at sea to venture out of sight of land. It took them many centuries to learn that they could sail straight from (modern) Tunisia to Sicily. Still, they were the first people from the "civilized" ancient fertile crescent to discover (modern) Spain.
They would have assumed that they would have fallen off the edge. The fact that you can see clearly that the Earth is roughly spherical from the top of a low hill seems to elude a lot of people who believe the nonsense about everyone thinking it was flat.
If you're arguing with me it's up to you to work out if and how I answered you. Fair enough?
The game-theoretic value of a draw also follows from a deductive argument wrong. To win you need to queen a pawn wrong, i.e. you need an advantage of 1 pawn or more wrong. 3 tempi in the initial position are worth 1 pawn. 1 tempo in the initial position is not enough to win. You cannot queen a tempo.
Prize competition
Find as many errors as possible in the quoted text.
The one who finds the most will receive a magnificent trophy.
There are only three obvious errors. I would say that the rest of it's ok but not, of course, as part of a deductive argiment. There were 3 logical errors.
You first "wrong" is not necessarily valid. The conclusion is merely unproven. If, as you appear to "know", chess happens to be a draw (whichever version) then that would certainly follow from a deductive argument (though not from the rest of what @tygxc posts). It could be rather a long deductive argument.