@8985
"Games with 0 errors: 24" ++ Then Chess is a draw. There were only 15 decisive games.
"Games with 2 errors: 18, Games with 3 errors: 18" ++ Not plausible, should be monotonous
"Games with 4 errors: 3, Games with 5 blunders: 6, Games with 6 blunders: 0, Games with 7 blunders: 6, Games with 8-10 blunders: 0, Games with 11 blunders: 3, Games with 12 blunders: 0, Games with 13 blunders: 3" ++ Not plausible, should be monotonous.
@8985
"Games with 0 errors: 24" ++ Then Chess is a draw. There were only 15 decisive games.
You don't expect random results from a probability distribution to precisely follow the expected values. Your same argument would show Chess is a win.
If you applied your argument to throwing a die and tried it out youl'd reach the conclusion that the numbers 1-6 couldn't be equally probable because that would mean the die should always land on 3½ and it didn't.
"Games with 2 errors: 18, Games with 3 errors: 18" ++ Not plausible, should be monotonous
Any sequence of two real numbers is monotonic.
You may not find it plausible, but it's in accordance with the blunder rates @Cobra91 measured using Syzygy from the example games I posted.
"Games with 4 errors: 3, Games with 5 blunders: 6, Games with 6 blunders: 0, Games with 7 blunders: 6, Games with 8-10 blunders: 0, Games with 11 blunders: 3, Games with 12 blunders: 0, Games with 13 blunders: 3" ++ Not plausible, should be monotonous.
Why should it be monotonous?
Are you giving up on your Poisson distribution? A Poisson distribution is not monotonic except for values of λ close to 0.
Again you may not find it plausible because your big red telephone says different, but it's in accordance with the blunder rates @Cobra91 measured using Syzygy from the example games I posted.
If your theory doesn't fit the facts, you can't fix it simply by assuming the facts are implausible.
@8995
"random results from a probability distribution to precisely follow the expected values"
++ I expect the theory to explain observed facts.
"Your same argument would show Chess is a win." ++ No it does not. There is no consistent way to explain the observed results assuming Chess a win for either white or black.
"If you applied your argument to throwing a die and tried it out youl'd reach the conclusion that the numbers 1-6 couldn't be equally probable" ++ No, if the die is not loaded then the results will get closer to 1/6 each the more throws are observed.
If it does not, then the conclusion is the die is loaded and we can calculate how much.
"because that would mean the die should always land on 3½ and it didn't."
++ That is your thinking error, not mine.
"Any sequence of two real numbers is monotonic." ++ But every sequence of 3 is not.
"blunder rates @Cobra91 measured"
++ That was not a sufficiently large, sufficiently strong tournament.
"om the example games I posted." ++ All 4 examples are irrelevant to weakly solving Chess.
"So are you giving up on your Poisson distribution?" ++ No.
"A Poisson distribution is not monotonic except for values near λ=0 which doesn't fit this case."
++ It fits the case as calculated. If the tournament is sufficiently large (136 games) and with a sufficient number of entities competing (17 players), then statistics are applicable.
If the tournament is sufficiently strong like the ICCF WC Finals then λ is close to zero.
@8995
"[reinserted:You don't expect ]random results from a probability distribution to precisely follow the expected values"
++ I expect the theory to explain observed facts.
Can you stop trying to change the arguments to which you respond by snipping out the bits you don't like please? It's a lot easier for you to use the quote facility than for others to reinsert the omitted bits.
So long as you don't expect random results from a probability distribution to precisely follow the expected values, my figures explain the facts in your example reasonably well. (I could easily fit them exactly in any number of arbitrarily assumed distributions as you do.)
Your theory fails to explain the observed facts in any of the four of the examples I posted. Why would you expect it to correctly predict the facts in the example you posted where we have no way of observing them?
"Your same argument would show Chess is a win." ++ No it does not. There is no consistent way to explain the observed results assuming Chess a win for either white or black.
Yes it does.
Your argument was
(*) "Games with 0 errors: 24" ++ Then Chess is a draw. There were only 15 decisive games.
The value 24 is the expected value given my assumed probability distribution. Your argument holds only if you ignore the bit you snipped out of my post this time. You are assuming that the actual number of games with 0 blunders must be exactly the expected number from the distribution.
If you do that then it also produces a proof that chess is a win, because there would then be exactly 83 games with the wrong result and that's not 15 either.
There is a consistent way to explain the observed results by assuming the actual results in your sample vary from the precise expectations in the distribution. Assuming that chess is a win would minimise the differences in that case, but as I said earlier that can't be taken as a reliable indicator of the theoretical result of chess.
"If you applied your argument to throwing a die and tried it out youl'd reach the conclusion that the numbers 1-6 couldn't be equally probable" ++ No, if the die is not loaded then the results will get closer to 1/6 each the more throws are observed.
If it does not, then the conclusion is the die is loaded and we can calculate how much.
"because that would mean the die should always land on 3½ and it didn't."
++ That is your thinking error, not mine.
Wrong way round as usual. That is your thinking in your proof (*) above. I nowhere use it.
"Any sequence of two real numbers is monotonic." ++ But every sequence of 3 is not.
False actually - there are many sequences of 3 that are. Supremely irrelevant at any rate because you gave a sequence of 2.
"blunder rates @Cobra91 measured"
++ That was not a sufficiently large, sufficiently strong tournament.
Your proposals are to use SF15 v SF15. It was SF15 v SF15. SF15 is about the strongest player that ever was.
There were 46 games. There's little doubt that the blunder rates would be about the same if I repeated the exercise 10 times. What's the "sufficiently large" at which you expect a Poisson distribution to magically appear?
"[reinserted: You may not find it plausible, but it's in accordance with the blunder rates @Cobra91 measured using Syzygy fr]om the example games I posted." ++ All 4 examples are irrelevant to weakly solving Chess.
They were designed to test the plausibility of a Poisson distribution of blunders in chess. Whether they might occur in any particular process for weakly solving chess or your process for weakly not solving chess doesn't appear to be related to that. (They do occur in the Syzygy process for weakly solving most of 7 man chess from an initial position).
"So are you giving up on your Poisson distribution?" ++ No.
How surprising!
"A Poisson distribution is not monotonic except for values near λ=0 which doesn't fit this case."
++ It fits the case as calculated. If the tournament is sufficiently large (136 games) and with a sufficient number of entities competing (17 players), then statistics are applicable.
If the tournament is sufficiently strong like the ICCF WC Finals then λ is close to zero.
A Poisson distribution with λ close to 0 will certainly fit the WDL statistics for the match in question (I should have chosen my wording more carefully). There are an infinite number of other distributions that would also exactly fit.
But we've already shown that a Poisson distribution doesn't apply.
An average blunder rate λ near 0 per game doesn't fit with the average blunder rates in my games. There the mean blunder rate (corresponding to λ) is 2.33.
From running many examples, that appears to be in line with other closely matched ply count 0 positions that can be checked with Syzygy. But the salient point is the blunder rates show a marked increase with the number of men from such positions. I guess it would be conservatively closer to 10 from the initial position.
That applies to SF15 v SF15 games under FIDE competition rules (as you say you plan to use to not solve chess) but the games in your tournament might be expected to have similar attributes. They're effectively SF15 v SF15 and the change in the 50 move rule, while it may have a considerable effect on perfect play. would be mostly opaque to a player at SF15's level.
@8997
"my figures explain the facts in your example reasonably well" ++ No they do not.
"I could easily fit them exactly" ++ Well do so and let us see.
"observed facts in any of the four of the examples I posted"
++ Are the 4 positions draws? No
Is this a tournament? No
Is this a sufficiently large tournament? No
Is this a sufficiently strong tournament? No
Is this relevant to weakly solving Chess? No
"we have no way of observing them?" ++ We have.
"The value 24 is the expected value given my assumed probability distribution"
++ as there were only 15 decisive games, your assumed probability distribution is wrong
"the actual number of games with 0 blunders must be exactly the expected number from the distribution" ++ Indeed, the task is to explain the observed facts.
"it also produces a proof that chess is a win" ++ No, it does not.
"exactly 83 games with the wrong result and that's not 15 either"
++ So your distribution is wrong.
"Assuming that chess is a win would minimise the differences"
++ No, it is not consistent with the observed facts.
"there are many sequences of 3 that are" ++ But not all are.
"Your proposals are to use SF15 v SF15" ++ No. My proposal to weakly solve Chess is to use SF to calculate until the 7-men endgame table base.
"SF15 is about the strongest player that ever was." ++ ICCF is stronger: human + SF.
Otherwise there would be no ICCF GM: John Doe would be World Champion.
"There were 46 games" ++ There were no games.
There were continuations from 4 irrelevant won positions. There was only 1 entity playing.
"What's the sufficiently large"
++ 136 games and 17 entities like ICCF WC Finals is sufficiently large.
"a Poisson distribution to magically appear?" ++ A Poisson distribution does not 'magically' appear. It is there, but it shows more clearly with a larger sample size.
"They were designed to test the plausibility of a Poisson distribution" ++ Bad design.
"But we've already shown that a Poisson distribution doesn't apply." ++ No, not at all.
"the blunder rates show a marked increase with the number of men from such positions"
++ Most errors should occur with around 26 men, as Chess is most complex then.
"I guess it would be conservatively closer to 10 from the initial position"
++ The initial position has been extensively studied.
"change in the 50 move rule" ++ The 50-moves rule plays no role. The weak solution of Chess reaches a draw without triggering the 50-moves rule. We know that from the perfect games with 0 errors of ICCF WC draws.
"it may have a considerable effect on perfect play"
++ The 50-moves rule has no effect at all on perfect play from the initial position.
Most perfect games are drawn before move 50.
@8997
"my figures explain the facts in your example reasonably well" ++ No they do not.
Do so!
"I could easily fit them exactly" ++ Well do so and let us see.
Chess is a draw
Games with 10 errors: 120
Games with 1 error: 15
Games with 2 errors: 1
Games with 3-9 or more than 10 errors: 0
"[reinserted:Your theory fails to explain the ]observed facts in any of the four of the examples I posted"
++ Are the 4 positions draws? No
You've answered your own question correctly. Shame you don't try it with anyone else's.
Is this a tournament? No
Spot on again. It's not a darts match either.
Is this a sufficiently large tournament? No
Sort of follows from the previous, but what do you mean by "sufficiently large". Are you expecting a Poisson distribution to spring into life at some number of games?
Is this a sufficiently strong tournament? No
SF15 not strong enough for you?
Is this relevant to weakly solving Chess? No
It's very relevant to your arguments that it's feasible, but it was only intended to convincingly demonstrate that the numbers of blunders in chess games don't follow a Poisson distribution. For that purpose (which it achieves) each of your preceding questions is irrelevant.
"we have no way of observing them?" ++ We have.
You still haven't posted the photo of your big red telephone, so I stand by what I said.
"The value 24 is the expected value given my assumed probability distribution"
++ as there were only 15 decisive games, your assumed probability distribution is wrong
Funny, my blasted die keeps refusing to land on 3½ as well.
"[reinserted: You are assuming that ]the actual number of games with 0 blunders must be exactly the expected number from the distribution" ++ Indeed, the task is to explain the observed facts.
The number of blunders in any of your games is not an observed or practically observable fact. (It is in mine.)
"[reinserted: If you do that then ]it also produces a proof that chess is a win" ++ No, it does not.
So you can't follow your own logic. (That's OK neither can anyone else.)
(Again, can you stop distorting my arguments by selectively snipping bits, please?)
"[reinserted: If you do that then it also produces a proof that chess is a win, because there would then be ]exactly 83 games with the wrong result and that's not 15 either"
++ So your distribution is wrong.
See if you can get your die to land on 3½ then say it's wrong.
"Assuming that chess is a win would minimise the differences"
++ No, it is not consistent with the observed facts.
Neither is my blasted die. Can you lend me one of yours?
"[reinserted: False actually - ]there are many sequences of 3 that are[reinserted: . Supremely irrelevant at any rate because you gave a sequence of 2. ]" ++ But not all are.
Well at least you can change your mind about something; you said all are not.
"Your proposals are to use SF15 v SF15" ++ No. My proposal to weakly solve Chess is to use SF to calculate until the 7-men endgame table base.
And when it calculates who will be working out the White moves and who will be working out the Black moves? Bend all your intellect to the question.
"SF15 is about the strongest player that ever was." ++ ICCF is stronger: human + SF.
Otherwise there would be no ICCF GM: John Doe would be World Champion.
Your argument that inserting putty links into steel chains makes them stronger is at best dubious.
"There were 46 games" ++ There were no games.
There were continuations from 4 irrelevant won positions. There was only 1 entity playing.
There were few complete games in your sample either, most were agreed draws.
Is your assertion that there's something special about the starting position that causes the blunder rates per game to follow a Poisson distribution, while it isn't true for other positions? If so what's your justification?
There was probably only 1 entity playing your sample too. They were probably all using the latest version of SF.
"What's the sufficiently large"
++ 136 games and 17 entities like ICCF WC Finals is sufficiently large.
That's just three times the number of games I gave. Since you're the one proposing a Poisson distribution why don't you rerun them a couple of times to justify your proposal and post your results?
"a Poisson distribution to magically appear?" ++ A Poisson distribution does not 'magically' appear. It is there, but it shows more clearly with a larger sample size.
There's no possible Poisson distribution that doesn't give a vanishingly small chance of the measured results in my examples. If it's there it manages to hide itself astonishingly well. Let us see when you've rerun them a couple of times. There is also a very small chance of any significant difference.
"They were designed to test the plausibility of a Poisson distribution" ++ Bad design.
"Bad design" in this case meaning the facts that emerge contradict your theory.
"But we've already shown that a Poisson distribution doesn't apply." ++ No, not at all.
Black is white, Pretty Polly, Pretty Polly, Pretty Polly.
"the blunder rates show a marked increase with the number of men from such positions"
++ Most errors should occur with around 26 men, as Chess is most complex then.
Chess is more complex then (another point that's passed over your head) that's why I conservatively guessed the average blunders per game in your sample to be around 10 rather than the 2.3 measured in my examples.
"I guess it would be conservatively closer to 10 from the initial position"
++ The initial position has been extensively studied.
But human study didn't even manage to get a lot of the tablebased positions right with a fraction of the number of men.
"change in the 50 move rule" ++ The 50-moves rule plays no role.
What's it there for then? What you mean is it's impact is completely beyond the horizon of anything that currently plays chess if there are more than a few men on the board.
The weak solution of Chess reaches a draw without triggering the 50-moves rule.
The weak solution? Do you really think there's just one?
The ones we've produced so far don't necessarily reach a draw without triggering the 50-moves rule.
We know that from the perfect games with 0 errors of ICCF WC draws.
That's probably a null set. It's only true because they agree a draw or repeat instead of playing out 50 moves anyway.
"it may have a considerable effect on perfect play"
++ The 50-moves rule has no effect at all on perfect play from the initial position.
Big red telephone?
Most perfect games are drawn before move 50.
Big red telephone again?
When do we see the photo?
“One of the most popular misconceptions about science is the notion of “scientific proof.” Although it may seem paradoxical, there is no such thing as “proof” in science, only scientific evidence” - http://ds-wordpress.haverford.edu/psych2015/projects/chapter/scientific-proof/
oh wow wouldnt you know it, I was right.
This often happens when you Google stuff like "scientific proof wrong" so something...
Here's one I did...
"5G responsible for", which quickly led to:
https://macdailynews.com/2019/08/02/hundreds-of-bees-drop-dead-around-5g-towers-in-california/
Always try to keep the value judgments out of the search parameters. That's a general statement for everyone, not directed at you.
Just commenting for my achivment interessting thread though
lick my toes
lick my toes
I'm sure you take care of that yourself. Now stop spamming.
I have to spam. I'm only seventeen posts away from getting the 1,000 posts achievement. That's why I came here to the arguement thread. You know the thread with the four horsemen of the arguements that goes on for thousands of posts? I can name three of them. Not sure who the fourth one is.
There is one for your first post which is why you always see new posters popping in randomly on threads with, "This is for the achievement." I think there is one for your hundredth post. There is one for post 1,000 called Megaphone and there is one for posting 10,000 which I think they call the Blabbermouth.
It was at the top of the stack. First one on the list to click on. Achievement achieved.
elroch has 147393 posts
I'm pretty sure he's one of the four horsemen. The members were not named so I'm left to speculate.
@8941
"what a node is" ++ A node is a position plus history and evaluation.
A position is a diagram plus side to move, castling rights and en passant flag.
A diagram is the location of men on the board.
A node is a vertex in a graph.
The default meaning in chess is a vertex in the game tree. The history alone is sufficient to define that, no need of position or evaluation.
If you think that a cloud engine can reach 10⁹ nodes a second and you're referring to the objective evaluation in your definition then you obviously believe that SF will solve chess in 1/10⁹ seconds. Why are you planning to take five years to not solve it?
If you're not referring to the objective evaluation, then you're presumably referring to an engine evaluation reached with a think time of 1/10⁹ seconds. Does that mean you think the meaning of "node" is engine dependent and humans don't go through any nodes at all?
A "position" means lots of different things depending on who is talking about it and what version of chess they are talking about.
Here are three game snippets. At the end of the three, the diagram plus side to move, castling rights and en passant flag are all identical. In fact in the first two the entire FEN is identical. So when you are talking about it you would say they've all reached the same position.
Under competition rules both the first two positions are forced wins for White, but the only winning move in the first is Rb1, while the only winning move in the second is Ra2. The third is drawn.
With your proposals so far to not solve chess, a meaning of "position" that has no definite game-theoretic value and no definite perfect moves is not a lot of use.
Tromp counts positions as you have just defined them, which determine the corresponding game-theoretic values under basic rules. Those figures are also not much use for your plans to not solve competition rules chess. They're vastly too low.
I think we can agree on "diagram".
Again, there are topics where this distinction is crucial (not just strong solution of chess), but a small amount of attention to efficiency in seeking a weak solution of chess (which we almost all agree is this central topic of this forum, with an accepted standard definition) means that the distinction does not matter much - the possibility of repetition getting in the way of a winning line only appears on an unnecessarily long route to the solution.
Again, there are topics where this distinction is crucial (not just strong solution of chess), but a small amount of attention to efficiency in seeking a weak solution of chess (what we almost all agree is this central topic of this forum, with an accepted standard definition) means that the distinction does not matter - the possibility of repetition getting in the way of a winning line only appears when you have taken an unnecessarily long route to the solution.
I agree that if you actually intend to weakly solve competition rules chess using a forward search that the repetitions can be eliminated as you go along, but not I think using an unmodified version of Stockfish to do the basic work (as @tygxc plans to do in his non solution). You still wouldn't get anywhere of course with today's computers, not even with seven maids with 7 mops. And you can't get away with using only ply count 0 positions, naturally.
Chess is a game of immense complexity, with an enormous number of possible positions and moves. The total number of legal positions in chess is estimated to be around 10^43, and the number of possible games is even greater than that. This means that it is virtually impossible to solve chess in the sense of determining the optimal move in every possible position, even with the most powerful computers. While it is true that chess engines and AI have achieved superhuman levels of play, there is still a vast space of unexplored possibilities, and new opening variations and tactics are constantly being discovered. In addition, the human element of the game means that even the most sophisticated computer programs are not infallible, and can still make mistakes or be outplayed by skilled human opponents. Moreover, the goal of "solving" chess is not necessarily desirable or even meaningful. Part of the beauty of the game lies in its open-endedness and the fact that there is always room for creativity and improvisation. If chess were to be "solved," it would lose much of its appeal as a dynamic and evolving art form. In short, while chess may continue to evolve and be studied for centuries to come, it is unlikely to ever be fully "solved" in the sense of exhausting all of its possibilities and nuances.
@8973
"I was aware of that stuff in middle school"
++ You may get aware of the truth after you study at a university.
“One of the most popular misconceptions about science is the notion of “scientific proof.” Although it may seem paradoxical, there is no such thing as “proof” in science, only scientific evidence” - http://ds-wordpress.haverford.edu/psych2015/projects/chapter/scientific-proof/
oh wow wouldnt you know it, I was right.
That is the opinion of the person who wrote the article. It does not mean you or they are right. Scientific proof is a different type of proof. You're extremely naïve.
You and I BOTH know that you are trying to troll with bad faith arguments.