The argument is "chess is solvable =draw"
They are trying to disprove that since we don't know that yet since computers can't actually solve it
Most of the arguments are them repeating themselves infinitly
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
tygxc wrote:
++ Human or engine evaluations (like +0.33) mean nothing in absolute terms.
However, each position can only be a win/draw/loss. That is the objective evaluation. It becomes apparent when the 7-men endgame table base is reached, or a prior 3-fold repetition.
Optimal play is play without errors, i.e. without moves that worsen the game state from a draw to a loss.
There have been fewer and fewer errors in the last years of ICCF correspondence play and hence fewer and fewer decisive games.
Now they are at 105 draws out of 105 games, i.e. perfect play.
Optimal play is not determinable by either you, or engines. It will be determinable once chess is solved, though, were that ever to occur. This is not news to you.
tygxc wrote:
++ This mistake keeps coming up: it is not necessary to visit all legal positions to weakly solve chess as Schaeffer did for Checkers. Besides, the vast majority of the 10^44 legal positions can never result from optimal play. Look at 3 samples: https://github.com/tromp/ChessPositionRanking multiple underpromotions from both sides.
Therefore Gurion's 10^37 is a better estimate.
https://univ-avignon.hal.science/hal-03483904
Weakly solving needs only 1 black answer to the reasonable white moves, not all black moves. Hence a square root.
That leads to 10^17 positions to weakly solve Chess.
In that light 10^13 is not that far from 10^17.
The mistake is yours. 10^17 does not hold up.
I will note here that once again you are using Tromp's numbers to try to support your claim...a claim that Tromp himself dismissed out of hand when you tried to extrapolate waaay too much using his work as a foundation.
tygxc wrote:
@9441
"proved that g4 is losing"
++ I know 1 g4? loses by force and I have provided evidence: 4 sequences where white loses.
If you disagree, then provide one (1) sequence where white holds a draw.
That is how chess analysis works.
Evidence is not proof. Solving a game means a proof, not just evidence.
If this is indicative of your thinking then it's no wonder that everyone disagrees with you.
Optimissed wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@9429
"I suggest each of them one at a time." ++ I reject your stupid suggestion.
"why arent you addressing them?" ++ For obvious reasons.
by definition, if you have proved that g4 is losing, then you have a way of addressing each of the 10^18 possible ways white can defend.
by admitting that you are not addressing all of them, you are admitting you have no proof. thanks for admitting you are wrong, as per usual.
That isn't a helpful comment, is it. A random move isn't going to help white unless white has an extraordinary stroke of good fortune. Almost all of the 10 ^ 96 moves you suggest are random and therefore probably useless. That is not the way to analyse chess.
You are missing the point. Both strong and weak solutions provide an algorithm for answering any response by the opponent with a move that maintains the game value (1/0/-1). Mere "evidence" of the game value of a move such as 1. g4 is not a solution, weak or strong. It's empirical, not analytical -- solutions (= proofs) are analytical.
tygxc wrote:
@9448
"current analysis INDICATES that g4 loses"
++ That are weasel words. It either loses, draws, or wins. In this case 1 g4? loses.
That is also the lingo of Fischer and Caruana for other positions: 'it loses by force'.
Losing by force may take 60 moves, but is inevitable.
You don't understand what words mean. No wonder no one agrees with you. The only mystery is why people continue to debate you when you are wrong on basic semantics, let alone the math (which I haven't looked at, but there's no point in bothering).
P.S. You and BC are made for each other.
May 17, 2024
0
#7108
Is it surprising that after years of making the point clear, there remain people here who can't understand what it means to solve a game?
May 17, 2024
0
#7109
"Human or engine evaluations (like +0.33) mean nothing in absolute terms."
we all know this, none of it can be used in proof. yet tygxc continues to do so. i wonder why. (this is rhetorical)
May 17, 2024
0
#7110
btw the autism question was genuine, i know from experience. most people here (other than tygxc) are not participating out of some inflated ego of themselves.
Peoples opinions don't change easily
People kinda assumed you can change them by arguing . The only way you can is if your open minded and most people that chose to argue here don't .There's actually a couple of communities that are really good for these types of debates but chess.com forums are not.
@Elroch
@MEGACHE3SE I think that's true I'm pretty sure it's because they like arguingim not sure if tyxgc is autistic though that might be a bit uncalled for
May 17, 2024
0
#7113
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
@MEGACHE3SE I think that's true I'm pretty sure it's because they like arguingim not sure if tyxgc is autistic though that might be a bit uncalled for
i dont think tygxc is autistic. i was wondering if jimbalter was autistic from their complete misunderstanding of the trying to end the argument
i myself am autistic, thats why i asked.
Oh that's fair then most people just use autism as an insult though unfurtently
May 17, 2024
0
#7115
If Stockfish fought Stockfish, a.k.a. best against best, it would be a draw. So technically I agree
@9526
"Mere "evidence" of the game value of a move such as 1. g4 is not a solution, weak or strong."
Prof. Van den Herik writes that game knowledge is beneficial in solving games.
I need no game tree to state 1 e4 Nf6 2 Qh5? loses by force for white. The same 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? The same 1 g4?
Likewise I need no game tree to see 1 a4 cannot be better than 1 e4.
If a way to draw for black against 1 e4 is found then a fortiori there is one against 1 a4.
@9535
"I don't see why people continue arguing."
++ Chess is known to be a draw.
The 105 ICCF WC Finals' draws even show how to draw.
@9511
"the "five years" bit is because"
++ GM Sveshnikov said so.
I admit I was surprised by it at first.
When I looked deeper, I saw he was right.
After all he was the world's authority on computer chess analysis: he taught grandmasters how to analyse chess with computers. He held an MSc. and almost a PhD. in engineering,
became a chess professional, but had to cut down competitive play because of cancer.
@9541
"Those are games played by strong human players."
++ With engines, at 5 days per move average.
I'm just here trying to end the argument :/ ... At a certain point if it has been two years prob should just get over yourselves
So you're a megalomaniacal narcissist? Who else would think that they can "end the argument"?
You should just get over yourself.
are you really trying to start another argument
Sounds a bit passive aggressive
I didn't think I could end the argument I'm just trying to (not by being right that doesn't help)
There was nothing passive about my response to your smug hypocritical nonsense.