Here is again the proof that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses by force for white.
If white plays differently, then white loses quicker.
A win is easier to prove than a draw.
Even without such constructive proof it is and was known that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses: a full piece down with no compensation of any kind.
I gave above proof that 1 g4? loses by force for white, which is more surprising a result.
@6581
"computers are pretty irrelevant" ++ Without computers it is not possible.
Only with 3 powerful computers during 5 years non stop is it feasible to weakly solve chess.
10^17 relevant positions is too huge a number for unaided humans.
Gauss managed quadratic reciprocity for ℵ₀ pairs of primes. That's more even than than the number you should have quoted. And they hadn't even invented computers.
In any case with your definition of "solved" it doesn't even need an abacus.
"human intelligence will play a far larger rôle"
++ Yes, incorporation of chess knowledge is beneficial.
That is also why Sveshnikov asked first for good assistants and second for modern computers.
I said "intelligence". Not the same as "stupidity" - look it up in Webster's.
"what would constitute a solution and the nature of any human thought"
++ We have examples: Checkers, Losing Chess, Connect Four, Nine Men's Morris...
"we don't count guessing as a solution" ++ No, nobody does.
What, guess or count their guesses as solutions? Some people give a very good imitation of both.
@6584
"for all practical purposes it's already been solved"
++ For all practical purpose chess is ultra-weakly solved: the game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw.
We also have > 1000 perfect games with optimal play from both sides: ICCF WC Finals draws.
However chess is not yet weakly solved.
We know chess is a draw, but we do not yet know exactly how.
How to draw against 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, 1 Nf3?
We don't know chess is a draw. For example, I know it's a forced win for white. So what "we know" is really just a guess. And as Mar said, guessing isn't a solution.
When chess was invented it was intended to be a contest between two people. The better player wins, regardless of color choice. So what I mean when I say for all practical purposes it's been solved is that chess is no longer just a contest between two people. Now, computers will beat humans every time. So, the game of chess as it was intended has been solved. Computers always win.
But as far as which color wins, or doesn't win, with computers, we don't actually know. We guess. So as long as we are guessing, white wins by force.
I agree that computers are pretty irrelevant apart from speeding things up a bit (a bit in this context). If chess ever gets a practical solution (it's been solved according to @tygxc's definition probably since it was first thought of) I think human intelligence will play a far larger rôle than Superficial Intelligence.
The difference between you and @Elroch and I is not about computers. It's about what would constitute a solution and the nature of any human thought that would arrive at one (though computers could be necessary to effect the arrival). In simple terms we don't count guessing as a solution.
The difference is between you and me and not between you and I. Anyway, it's your assertion that I'm guessing.
Imagine this. You are asked to add together 27 and 65. You can't do it because it involves a "carry over". Teacher gives you the right answer though, but you accuse her of guessing because she can't possibly work out such a difficult sum.
It's just the same, even though you may think it isn't. To people who understand chess, the answer is just as clear as 27 + 65.
Here is again the proof that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses by force for white.
If white plays differently, then white loses quicker.
A win is easier to prove than a draw.
Even without such constructive proof it is and was known that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses: a full piece down with no compensation of any kind.
I gave above proof that 1 g4? loses by force for white, which is more surprising a result.
You certainly didn't and 1.g4 doesn't lose by force. If it did you would give the proof.
In the game you gave re 2. Ba6, I much prefer 2. ... ba, which should lead to a quicker win for black. I completely disagreed with the way your "proof" went. Black has no need to play aggressively. It's up to white to save the game and black can develop quietly and black's advantage increases naturally, especially after 2. ba, which should be far superior to 2. ...Nxa6.
Here is again the proof that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses by force for white.
If white plays differently, then white loses quicker.
A win is easier to prove than a draw.
Even without such constructive proof it is and was known that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses: a full piece down with no compensation of any kind.
I gave above proof that 1 g4? loses by force for white, which is more surprising a result.
There's no proof using engine analysis. Engines are imperfect, as proven by the fact that they still get measurably better with every release. This has only been pointed out to you about a hundred times in this and other threads. That isn't even hyperbole.
Your whole premise to solving chess is to redefine the solution into your dead hero's statement. Backwards, as ever.
I agree that computers are pretty irrelevant apart from speeding things up a bit (a bit in this context). If chess ever gets a practical solution (it's been solved according to @tygxc's definition probably since it was first thought of) I think human intelligence will play a far larger rôle than Superficial Intelligence.
The difference between you and @Elroch and I is not about computers. It's about what would constitute a solution and the nature of any human thought that would arrive at one (though computers could be necessary to effect the arrival). In simple terms we don't count guessing as a solution.
The difference is between you and me and not between you and I. Anyway, it's your assertion that I'm guessing.
Imagine this. You are asked to add together 27 and 65. You can't do it because it involves a "carry over". Teacher gives you the right answer though, but you accuse her of guessing because she can't possibly work out such a difficult sum.
It's just the same, even though you may think it isn't. To people who understand chess, the answer is just as clear as 27 + 65.
The difference is between you and @Elroch and me, but point acknowledged.
The cases aren't the same. The teacher would be able to work out the sum, but you can't work out the position - otherwise youl'd have no problem with my challenge to demonstrate it against SF.
Here is again the proof that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses by force for white.
If white plays differently, then white loses quicker.
A win is easier to prove than a draw.
Even without such constructive proof it is and was known that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses: a full piece down with no compensation of any kind.
I gave above proof that 1 g4? loses by force for white, which is more surprising a result.
Is that pathetic or is that pathetic?
It's possible - in fact likely - that the advantage of the first move might be enough to win by force. A hypothetical super power chess computer running at insane speeds might claim, prior to making its first move: "Mate in 2,212,598,303,505,004,977"
I agree that computers are pretty irrelevant apart from speeding things up a bit (a bit in this context). If chess ever gets a practical solution (it's been solved according to @tygxc's definition probably since it was first thought of) I think human intelligence will play a far larger rôle than Superficial Intelligence.
The difference between you and @Elroch and I is not about computers. It's about what would constitute a solution and the nature of any human thought that would arrive at one (though computers could be necessary to effect the arrival). In simple terms we don't count guessing as a solution.
The difference is between you and me and not between you and I. Anyway, it's your assertion that I'm guessing.
Imagine this. You are asked to add together 27 and 65. You can't do it because it involves a "carry over". Teacher gives you the right answer though, but you accuse her of guessing because she can't possibly work out such a difficult sum.
It's just the same, even though you may think it isn't. To people who understand chess, the answer is just as clear as 27 + 65.
The difference is between you and @Elroch and me, but point acknowledged.
The cases aren't the same. The teacher would be able to work out the sum, but you can't work out the position - otherwise youl'd have no problem with my challenge to demonstrate it against SF.
I did anticipate that answer, so thankyou. My point is that there's no need to work out any analysis after 2. Ba6. Also, nothing is to be gained by pretending to give a solution against S.F. I have no idea how S.F. would attempt to play and it's immaterial. Instead, since it's your idea, why don't you show how S.F. would play as white to stop black winning. That should be funny and after all, you made the challenge, so you should show how it would go. It interests you but not me.
Here is again the proof that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses by force for white.
If white plays differently, then white loses quicker.
A win is easier to prove than a draw.
Even without such constructive proof it is and was known that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses: a full piece down with no compensation of any kind.
I gave above proof that 1 g4? loses by force for white, which is more surprising a result.
Is that pathetic or is that pathetic?
I'm apathetic to whichever it is.
I nowhere said the position is not winning for Black. I don't know. Neither do you.
I did in fact try Black against SF a couple of times and both turned out to be losing for Black.
I do know. You may imagine that I don't know but the contents of your imagination are entirely of your own invention.
It's possible - in fact likely - that the advantage of the first move might be enough to win by force. A hypothetical super power chess computer running at insane speeds might claim, prior to making its first move: "Mate in 2,212,598,303,505,004,977"
But not if the 50 move rule is in force.
Contrary to @Optimissed's claim, I am 100% certain that those who claim that 2. Ba6 loses are guessing. Of course those who are the subject of this knowledge may erroneously believe I am only guessing this, but they would be wrong to do so.
Contrary to @Optimissed's claim, I am 100% certain that those who claim that 2. Ba6 loses are guessing. Of course those who are the subject of this knowledge may erroneously believe I am only guessing this, but they would be wrong to do so.
Well after all, I know whether I'm guessing or not. You keep reminding us about proof via assertion and now it's time to remind yourself about it. You're the one who's making an assertion. I'm saying that I know without doubt that the result is clear, which is my opinion, based on fact. You are asserting that I'm guessing but you cannot prove that I may not, for instance, have a better understanding than you do, rather than a worse one.
I also know other things that some claim cannot be known. People like, for instance, Professor Dawkins. Ring any bells??
edited ^ just one word added which makes all the difference as to whether it's intelligible.
@6584
"for all practical purposes it's already been solved"
++ For all practical purpose chess is ultra-weakly solved: the game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw.
We also have > 1000 perfect games with optimal play from both sides: ICCF WC Finals draws.
However chess is not yet weakly solved.
We know chess is a draw, but we do not yet know exactly how.
How to draw against 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, 1 Nf3?