@9984
"Draws with humans... Humans suck at chess."
++ Engines make less mistakes than the strongest human.
Two engines make less mistakes than 1 engine.
Engines at 5 days/ move make less mistakes than engines at 5 minutes/move.
ICCF (grand)masters with engines at 5 days/move make less mistakes than the strongest engine at 5 days / move.
They have now reached 0 mistakes.
tygxc gotta love how you once again ignored the complete disproof of everything youve said here.
Btw megache3se I asked playerafar why don't you play chess and only talk on forums
He didn't reply he tried to claim "hypocrite " lol
Could you give me a reason since he isn't giving one for me ?
@9966
"weakly solving is poor terminology"
++ That is the terminology used in this field of mathematics.
"Partial solving looks a little better." ++ Schaeffer solved Checkers weakly, not 'partially'.
"calls checkmate that's real solving" ++ It is reaching a 7-men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition. Chess is a draw.
"g4 does not lose" ++ It does, I showed how.
"I don't think its the worst move either." ++ It is the worst move, also according to AlphaZero.
"1) Na3 is bottom ranked on some lists. But I think 1) Nh3 could be worse."
++ No, all white first moves except 1 g4? are fit to draw.
"1) g4 - the Grob opening can be a weapon against somebody who doesn't know"
++ 1 g4? is a mistake, but at lower levels and/or in fast time controls it does not matter who makes the first mistake, only who makes the last mistake.
'weakly solving' is used - but they should improve it.
This one's about chess - not checkers.
And if he 'weakly solved it' he didn't solve it.
If it takes a year to proceed from a 7 man tablebase to an 8 man tablebase then to get to 9 men multiplies by another more than 500 positions.
Because of ten different piece types and the many squares that each one of them could be placed on.
Which means that to reach 10 men multiplies by 25,000.
So 500 years for 9.
25,000 years for 10.
And so on. Trillions of trillions of years to get to 32 men - let alone do 32.
Got an AlphaZero link on 1) g4 ty?
Na3 'fit to draw'?
That hasn't been proven tyg. Nor that it cant win by force even - however unlikely it looks.
Regarding first mistake and last mistake after 1) g4
just one big enough 'first mistake' by black can be enough for white to win.
'First and last mistake'.
You're doing OK tyg. As I said - I don't want to argue.
BC and his helpers can 'troll/argue'
Expressing disagreement - different from 'arguing'.
You mean you can troll argue? Cause you can't even answer a question
"Draws with humans... Humans suck at chess."
++ Engines make less mistakes than the strongest human.
Two engines make less mistakes than 1 engine.
Engines at 5 days/ move make less mistakes than engines at 5 minutes/move.
ICCF (grand)masters with engines at 5 days/move make less mistakes than the strongest engine at 5 days / move.
They have now reached 0 mistakes.
Pure conjecture. Every word out of your mouth about "errors" is meaningless. Engines and human beings are not capable of determining what a subtle "error" maybe be in the context of solving chess, only in the context of current play capabilities, which have temporarily plateaued...
The good news is that these 100+ draws happened and you have gone out on your limb and made your proclamation that perfect play is now a done deal...so, in coming years when there are decisive ICCF games, you will, naturally, want to come back and apologize for being wrong and recant your position...
tygxc gotta love how you once again ignored the complete disproof of everything youve said here.
tygxc is 'tough'. He's a fighter.
People keep trying to take him down and they keep failing.
For two years now and almost 10,000 posts.
from Dio just now:
"you will, naturally, want to come back and apologize for being wrong and recant..."
Lol!
Not likely that tygxc nor 'O' will be doing that ...
I've got this notion that people here will not be building their stocks portfolios on those ...
you will, naturally, want to come back and apologize for being wrong and recant..."
Lol!
Not likely that tygxc nor 'O' will be doing that ...
I've got this notion that people here will not be building their stocks portfolios on those ...
BC likely won't either since he's hypocritical did he post i think I need to scroll
There's a second playerafar...
for all you spectators at home --tygxc's logic is "that chess is a draw because the engines had perfect play - and why do the engines have perfect play? not because every other path is calculated, its because chess is a draw!"
" The 106 ICCF WC draws mean that Chess is ultra-weakly solve"
note how thats just picking some games he ASSUMES have "perfect play", completely disregarding any possibility that there was a line that each of the games missed. but according to tygxc, as long as there is no counterexample provided, his "proof" holds.
And luckily, in tygxc's fantasy, the fallacy of appeal to ignorance isnt a fallacy!!
taken from the philosophy department of Texas University.- "Appeal to Ignorance. This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim. Examples: a) Him: "C'mon, hook up with me tonight." Her: "Why should I?" Him: "Why shouldn't you?" b) Since you haven't been able to prove your innocence, I must assume you're guilty." "
Tygxc also has an "inductive" "proof" of his claim that chess is "proven" to be a draw. he claims that a tempo is worth less than a pawn, and that a pawn advantage is needed to win.
of course, he provides no evidence for this besides crying "oh its common knowledge". thats also a fallacy. any proof can be traced to base axioms.
elsewhere, tygxc makes the claim that chess can be weakly solved in 5 years with the right computers. tygxc's 5-year "calculation" is actually based on a basic error he made which over-estimated computational speed by a factor of 100 million.
tygxc gotta love how you once again ignored the complete disproof of everything youve said here.
tygxc is 'tough'. He's a fighter.
People keep trying to take him down and they keep failing.
For two years now and almost 10,000 posts.
its not failing hes just literally intellectually deficient.
@9995
"Engines and human beings are not capable of determining what a subtle error maybe be in the context of solving chess" ++ An error (?) is a move that turns a drawn position into a lost position, or a won position into a drawn position.
A blunder (??) or double error is a move that turns a won position into a lost position.
"in coming years when there are decisive ICCF games"
++ In previous years there were decisive ICCF WC Finals games, every year fewer, now none.
But if an engine can't see the error how would we know that it is an error if it is still a draw?
also playerafar please learn some game theory and come back, "weakly" solving is extremely significant, and its clear that you see the term "weakly" and think its insignificant.
tygxc, i recommend you also learn some game theory, because you dont understand what ultra-weakly solved means. your "proofs" are statistical fallacies AT BEST.
@9995
"Engines and human beings are not capable of determining what a subtle error maybe be in the context of solving chess" ++ An error (?) is a move that turns a drawn position into a lost position, or a won position into a drawn position.
A blunder (??) or double error is a move that turns a won position into a lost position.
"in coming years when there are decisive ICCF games"
++ In previous years there were decisive ICCF WC Finals games, every year fewer, now none.
gotta love how you make up your own definitions and pretend they are official.
but of course, whatever you think is true is "proven to be true" in your world.
@10004
"how would we know that it is an error if it is still a draw?"
++ By the end result of the game.
If chess were not a draw, then each draw must contain an odd number of errors: 1, 3, 5...
If chess is a draw, then each draw must contain an even number of errors: 0, 2, 4...
The most plausible explanation of 106 draw out of 106 games at planetary top level is
0 error: 106 games
1 error: 0 games
2 errors: 0 games
3 errors: 0 games
4 errors: 0 games
It cannot be excluded it were
0 error: 105 games
1 error: 0 games
2 errors: 1 game
3 errors: 0 games
4 errors: 0 games
Anyway, Chess is a draw: the game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw and we have 106 (or 105 or even 104) perfect games with no error.
@9995
"Engines and human beings are not capable of determining what a subtle error maybe be in the context of solving chess" ++ An error (?) is a move that turns a drawn position into a lost position, or a won position into a drawn position.
A blunder (??) or double error is a move that turns a won position into a lost position.
"in coming years when there are decisive ICCF games"
++ In previous years there were decisive ICCF WC Finals games, every year fewer, now none.
Those are good definitions of errors and blunders @tygxc
Good. But not ironclad.
And not totally comprehensive.
In common usage - a blunder can lose a game from an equal or unclear position.
There's also just 'weak play' - a series of inferior moves that can lose a game.
Happens constantly. Often 'positional moves' rather than tactical.
Maybe one could isolate one where it became 'clearly losing' but that's not the point.
The point is that even the computers can't necessarily catch 'weak play'.
I think Elroch dealt with that one - regarding '104 games'.
But if it is equal it is still a draw just slightly worse