@9530
"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." ++ No. The only evaluation used is win/draw/loss at the end of the game reaching a 7-men endgame table base or a prior 3-fold repetition.
@9546
"Did they play the top engine move every game?"
++ No. They use multiple engines and multiple tunings of engines.
"You can keep bringing up ICCF results, but that doesn't mean that much."
++ It is the strongest chess on the planet, stronger than engines, stronger than human grandmasters.
They have now reached perfection: 105 games with optimal play from both sides, all draws.
I have beaten stockfish my self so has one of my ADHD friends stockfish has very little understanding of how to avoid/generate an attack
@9551
"Chess engines are not "god", they cannot play perfect chess."
++ ICCF (grand)masters with engines and at 5 days / move average have now reached perfection, they can now draw against any present or future superior being.
Maybe it would be a draw if it was 100 petrovs ...
@9554
"Maybe it would be a draw if it was 100 petrovs"
++ They try all kinds: Petrov, Ruy Lopez, Italian, Sicilian Najdorf, French, Catalan, Queen's Gambit, Queen's Indian Defense, Nimzovich Indian Defense... All draws.
Surprising that there is not one, but several ways to draw against 1 e4 and 1 d4.
@9557
"when they still have room to improve"
Jockeyed by a human ICCF (grand)master they now reached perfection at 5 days / move average.
Maybe future engines can do the same at 5 hours/move, or 5 minutes/move, or 5 seconds/move.
Maybe they can do it with artificial intelligence instead of a human jockey.
@9520
"Optimal play is not determinable by either you, or engines."
++ The 105 ICCF World Championship games are optimal play, not by the engines used,
nor by me, but by the results themselves: 105 draws in 105 games.
"It will be determinable once chess is solved" ++ That is where we now about are.
Weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game theoretic value against any opposition. The strategy to achieve the game theoretic value of the draw against any opposition is to follow an ICCF World Championship Finals drawn game for as long as possible and then proceed with an engine at 5 days / move until a 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition is reached.
I would imagine that even if computers make a way to play with 100% accuracy, then the worst case scenario would be that Chess is replaced by Chess960, seeing as for computers to solve that, they would effectively need to solve Chess Nine hundred and sixty times. The best case scenario is that computer vs. computer Chess is nullified, but human Chess is still playable. Currently, even the 3200 bot (which I know isn't the best in the world) can still get hung up in certain positions.
Yes, albeit Fischer random is not chess, it is gambling - some setups are draw and some are winning. You depend on a draw. More fair would be if the pawns are placed on their origin positions and then white, as a representative of the challenging army, put first piece of his choice wherever he likes on his back rank followed by the black with a piece of his choice, then white again and so on until all pieces are set. In this case deploying the pieces would be the challenge and part of the strategy of its own while in essence you still have got 960.
I think I played 11 games of Chess960, winning ten and drawing one from what was a very difficult to find winning position. I think that none of the starting positions were anything but drawn with best play. I think there's more chance to win in the standard start position, actually. From that position the pieces, each in their own way, are more active than in any other starting positions.
I played 604 (that's even lesser than 960) blitz games on Lichess and I can recall some of them setups being really sharp and give greater advantage to the side that opens the game than another.
As I mentioned before and what I believe would be fair is that players build up their starting positions with one piece at a time with the white starting where black is not forced to follow symmetrically.
@9480
"I tried 10. Ncb5" ++ It does not matter. If white plays differently, then white loses differently.
1 g4? loses while it weakens the king's side.
with a 7-men endgame table base win.
@9566
"Two tempi isn't enough to win." ++ That is correct. White can play 1 h3 and 2 a3 and still hold the draw. The problem with 1 g4? is not tempi, or is not losing the pawn, but is weakening the king's side. White can no longer comfortably castle O-O to bring the king to safety and connect the rooks. Castling gains 2 tempi: 3 moves Kf0, Rf1, Kg1 at the cost of 1 move O-O.
"++ Chess is known to be a draw." known, but not proven. ask any mathematician.
"++ The 105 ICCF World Championship games are optimal play, not by the engines used,
nor by me, but by the results themselves: 105 draws in 105 games."
thats not a proof of optimization.
try again
tygxc why do you continue to ignore the suggestion of trying literally every possible white move after g4? by definition a mathematical proof addresses all of these.
you are still yet to give your math education. you claim to know better than all of the math professionals that ive talked to, so surely you can give your own math publishes?
I would imagine that even if computers make a way to play with 100% accuracy, then the worst case scenario would be that Chess is replaced by Chess960, seeing as for computers to solve that, they would effectively need to solve Chess Nine hundred and sixty times. The best case scenario is that computer vs. computer Chess is nullified, but human Chess is still playable. Currently, even the 3200 bot (which I know isn't the best in the world) can still get hung up in certain positions.
Yes, albeit Fischer random is not chess, it is gambling - some setups are draw and some are winning. You depend on a draw. More fair would be if the pawns are placed on their origin positions and then white, as a representative of the challenging army, put first piece of his choice wherever he likes on his back rank followed by the black with a piece of his choice, then white again and so on until all pieces are set. In this case deploying the pieces would be the challenge and part of the strategy of its own while in essence you still have got 960.
I think I played 11 games of Chess960, winning ten and drawing one from what was a very difficult to find winning position. I think that none of the starting positions were anything but drawn with best play. I think there's more chance to win in the standard start position, actually. From that position the pieces, each in their own way, are more active than in any other starting positions.
I played 604 (that's even lesser than 960) blitz games on Lichess and I can recall some of them setups being really sharp and give greater advantage to the side that opens the game than another.
As I mentioned before and what I believe would be fair is that players build up their starting positions with one piece at a time with the white starting where black is not forced to follow symmetrically.
I understand that it seems that way but I got a strong impression that it would be due to not really thinking about the opening position. The standard position is really flexible and 960 positions are often very much less so, which means that there often isn't the variety of opening moves, especially for the second player. You can't just play normal types of strategy like occupying the centre and expecting it will always equalise. Sometimes it's strongest to start with a flank attack or make moves that would be rather odd looking in a normal setup. But half an hour looking at possible paths of developmnt for both sides before you make a single move is necessary.
Interestingly, I found a pattern, which was that at some point, the situation on the board starts to look more like a normal chess game from the standard position and it tended to be just around this point that I'd get a winning advantage.
I think that can be explained by assuming that the disposition of the pieces in the standard setup is the most flexible one and therefore when the position is just beginning to look like a standard position, that's when your pieces are starting to coordinate well. I found that on each occasion I managed to get my pieces coordinating and maade a useful pawn break before my opponent and that occurred whether I was white or black, due to my opponents' not looking hard enough at possible patterns of development for both sides,
Of course, right moves always converge to the similar patterns, the same in the classical chess as in the 960 fischer random. It is in the feature of the pieces movement which is the same in both variants.
What you underestimate or you are not aware of is the potential of a random position that could be decisive in some cases. Standard chess starting position is definitely not the most versatile, I experienced this in my own games.
@9565
"ed looks better"
++ It does not matter. If white plays differently, then white loses differently. After 1 g4? the loss may take long, but is just as inevitable as after 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? or 1 e4 Nf6 2 Qh5?
with checkmate in 18.
@9572
"the suggestion of trying literally every possible white move after g4?"
++ There is no need to. 1 g4? loses just like 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? or 1 e4 Nf6 2 Qh5?
Please feel free and try to find an improvement for white and analyse for yourself with any engine.
@9575
'White is surviving and black is running out of pieces.'
++ White is not surviving. After 1 g4? the loss is inevitable.
Each piece traded brings the 7-men endgame table base win closer.
With a 6-men endgame table base win.
@9579
"1. g4 is a very bad move"
++ Yes, 1 g4? is the worst possible first move, and the only one that loses.
"that probably doesn't lose by force"
++ 1 g4? loses by force. Please present your own line where in the end white holds the draw.
That is how chess analysis works. One side tries to win, one side tries to draw.
In the end one side succeeds and one side fails. The failing side must find an improvement.
If the failing side cannot find an improvement that succeeds, then proof is final.
Optimissed wrote: About two days ago, I was looking at the mathematician Cantor's idea of transfinite numbers. I read it and knew he was talking rubbish.
Good grief. No wonder this discussion is so long ... there are numerous contributions by pompous ignoramuses. This one even blabbered about his IQ. I'm a member and former officer of Mensa, with a proctor-tested IQ of 150. (No, BigIlliterateMoronTroll665, that's not a brag.) I have friends who are members of triple-9 societies. IQ is a very narrow measure, and not of knowledge or understanding, which Optimissed and tygxc have very little of. There are some actually understanding people here, in some areas but not others. e.g., MEGACHE3SE understands the math and the flaws in tygxc's arguments, but "I was wondering if jimbalter was autistic from their complete misunderstanding of the trying to end the argument" is complete nonsense -- I'm not autistic and I had no misunderstanding of BigTroll665's comment. Perhaps MEGACHE3E's own autism is making it difficult to understand BT and my response to him.
Anyway, I've quickly learned that this thread is a complete waste. Ta ta.