@8058
"you do realize that computers are FORCED to play suboptimal openings because they are literally too good at it otherwise?"
++ Yes, in TCEC slightly unbalanced openings are imposed to prevent all draws.
However, it is inefficient to recalculate what already has been calculated.
Each ICCF draw represents 2 years of engine calculation under supervision of an ICCF (grand)master.
"For all practical purpose Chess has been ultra-weakly solved and the game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw."
the fact you said "for all practical purposes" means it isnt ultra weakly solved.
"1... e5 Grandmaster E selects this. It is probably that 1...c5 draws as well and 1...e6 and/or 1...c6 might draw as well, but a weak solution only calls for one strategy to achieve the game-theoretic value of the draw.
From now on no positions with a black pawn on e7 are relevant. This shrinks the search space."
"7...Nf5 Grandmaster E selects this. Only 1 way to draw needed."
yeah but you havent ruled out that black could be playing to win.
you have to search every single one and prove a draw/win for each black move.
If you think about it, it doesn't make sense to call 1. e4 ....e5 a strategy or ...c5 a strategy or ...c6 a strategy. Because then you're faced with the second move and each of those also becomes a strategy. And then the third move, so which strategy will you then pursue? By this time, it's clear that the word strategy is being completely misused.
That may be ok if it weren't for the confusion it causes ... people here making constant perceptual errors and logical omissions isn't aided by them having to speak mumbo-jumbo.
All we're really concerned with is choices of moves and that is the problem with misusing the word "strategy". It's pretentious as well as being misapplied and basically stupid. Ultimately, it's part of a badly thought out **verbal strategy** that confuses others; but it has also equally been shown to confuse the people who use the word, too. Even van den Herik was confused by it.
This entire nomenclature is wrongly used, by people who set out on the wrong path, are sticking to it through thick and thin and who can't think accurately in ANY case. They insist on it here, because they insist that alternatives would confuse them but it's clear that anything confuses them. Than goes for pretty much most people commenting here.
"For all practical purpose Chess has been ultra-weakly solved and the game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw."
the fact you said "for all practical purposes" means it isnt ultra weakly solved.
That isn't a correct interpretation of "practical purposes". It highlights the difference between theory and practice. Practice means reality, in this case. And basically, all the mind bogglingingly useless and inaccurate discussion on solving chess here is hypothesis, which some people may hope should become theory.
"For all practical purpose Chess has been ultra-weakly solved and the game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw."
the fact you said "for all practical purposes" means it isnt ultra weakly solved.
That isn't a correct interpretation of "practical purposes". It highlights the difference between theory and practice. Practice means reality, in this case. And basically, all the mind bogglingingly useless and inaccurate discussion on solving chess here is hypothesis, which some people may hope should become theory.
the thing is that tygxc is arguing for it on a theoretical level.
No, your words (penultimate post) are not what an algorithm is. Compare it to a good definition (or the wikipedia article).
For example, Euclid's algorithm is a systematic procedure for finding the greatest common divisor (GCD) of two integers. He proved it worked using logic, executed it manually and in recent times it is implemented as computer code to do the same thing.
Another algorithm would be one to generate a tablebase for chess.
There are simple algorithms to play perfect chess as well. Unfortunately they require either stupendous time or stupendous precalculated data (such as a 32-piece tablebase).
Here, Elroch, you're making a mistake in confusing Euclid's algorithm, which is a precise order of logical operations to achieve a definite end within a perfectly ordered, abstract and yet precise logical construction within mathematics; and an algorithm required for situations of imperfect information. You claim that chess is a game of perfect information but that claim is incorrect, since were the data we have to become information capable of clearly leading us to find perfect moves, we would need to already have accomplished the goal of solving chess which we're all here squabbling about. It becomes perfect information with the development of a 32 piece tablebase and not before. In the social sciences and politics and so forth, ToG is used to construct approximate models which can be tinkered with. There's no comparison between these two types of algorithm. After all, a recipe is an algorithm, as has been pointed out. Are all recipes perfect or would some recipes make terrible cakes?
You really need to resolve the problems you have understanding the real meaning of the terminology you are using. Your MMath doesn't help you understand the very fundamentals better than you do. Only accurate and clear thinking will do that because, if someone with better maths credentials than yours explained it to you, you would still need to think about it to understand it.
On another note my son spent the last week in Germany, in a small town called Lingen. He's very happy with his new job and thinks he made the right decision to leave a company where it was certain he would have made senior management quickly, for a smaller and more efficient one, where the work environment is far more challenging. He is leading a team that analyses data regarding gas pipelines like the Nord Stream. He therefore needs to master your own subject, stats; and to make some attempt to learn to speak German. If he weren't so busy I'd have liked to involve him in this discussion but he needs to be left alone for a couple of years.
@8061
"for all practical purposes means it isnt ultra weakly solved."
++ Formally not, practically yes.
The Riemann hypothesis is considered to be true. Several work on proving it, none on disproving it. The Four color theorem and Fermat's Last Theorem were known to be true long before a formal proof was published.
Anyway Chess being a draw is formally only a plausible hypothesis not yet formally proven, while Chess being a white win, or even a black win are non-plausible hypotheses contrary to all evidence and logic.
"The Four color theorem and Fermat's Last Theorem were known to be true long before a formal proof was published."
i dont think you understand how the mathematical community works.
Literally just a few years before the formal proof was finished for fermats theorem mathematicians were willing to believe rumors of counter examples.
just because the first googleplex of something follows your pattern doesnt mean the next google will.
"while Chess being a white win, or even a black win are non-plausible hypotheses running contrary to all evidence and logic."
actually, contrary to zero evidence/logic. its just very statistically unlikely.
you need to address the fault in your strategy stealing claim btw.
@8067
"i dont think you understand how the mathematical community works."
++ I know that better than any here.
"mathematicians were willing to believe rumors of counter examples" ++ Bad mathematicians...
"contrary to zero evidence/logic" ++ I presented the evidence and the logic.
If you do not understand it, then that is your problem.
"you need to address the fault in your strategy stealing claim" ++ There is no fault.
If 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 wins for black, then 1 Nf3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 d3 Nc6 4 d4 wins for white.
Come up with any black win and there is a corresponding white win by strategy stealing.
Whatever black tries, white always has a way to lose a tempo. That is reductio ad absurdum.
@8061
"for all practical purposes means it isnt ultra weakly solved."
++ Formally not, practically yes.
The Riemann hypothesis is considered to be true. Several work on proving it, none on disproving it. The Four color theorem and Fermat's Last Theorem were known to be true long before a formal proof was published.
Anyway Chess being a draw is formally only a plausible hypothesis not yet formally proven, while Chess being a white win, or even a black win are non-plausible hypotheses contrary to all evidence and logic.
Everything here seems correct.
"The Four color theorem and Fermat's Last Theorem were known to be true long before a formal proof was published."
i dont think you understand how the mathematical community works.
Literally just a few years before the formal proof was finished for fermats theorem mathematicians were willing to believe rumors of counter examples.
just because the first googleplex of something follows your pattern doesnt mean the next google will.
"while Chess being a white win, or even a black win are non-plausible hypotheses running contrary to all evidence and logic."
actually, contrary to zero evidence/logic. its just very statistically unlikely.
It isn't anything to do with statistics, since it is only a type of "true contra false" proposition, which is viewed as a statistical probability only by those who have no proper means to make a judgement. If you can think well, even the most obscure subject areas can become clearer in the light of such thinking.
you need to address the fault in your strategy stealing claim btw.
Please point them out.
I know more about the theoretical physics community than the maths one because after his MMath, my son did a PhD in Condensed Matter Physics and I became interested, because, of course, it's "quantum physics". I learned that some PhD-candidate-level physicists are willing to believe any nonsense which hasn't been formally disproven, "because it's interesting" i.e. "cool". I also learned that probably the less able ones are drawn towards softer subject areas within physics, such as cosmology and astronomy, where the knowledge-base is "woollier". Physics was also my favourite subject at school.
@8067
"i dont think you understand how the mathematical community works."
++ I know that better than any here.
"mathematicians were willing to believe rumors of counter examples" ++ Bad mathematicians...
"contrary to zero evidence/logic" ++ I presented the evidence and the logic.
If you do not understand it, then that is your problem.
"you need to address the fault in your strategy stealing claim" ++ There is no fault.
If 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 wins for black, then 1 Nf3 d5 2 g3 c5 3 d3 Nc6 4 d4 wins for white.
Come up with any black win and there is a corresponding white win by strategy stealing.
Whatever black tries, white always has a way to lose a tempo. That is reductio ad absurdum.
In the absence of a formal logical proof for that I find it intuitively compelling. Indeed I thought of it myself years ago. Not saying it must be right due to that. It just seems that the odds it's wrong are infinitesimal bordering on the ridiculous.
It is false that there is a strategy-stealing strategy for white. It would need to cover EVERY black response.
No, your words (penultimate post) are not what an algorithm is. Compare it to a good definition (or the wikipedia article).
For example, Euclid's algorithm is a systematic procedure for finding the greatest common divisor (GCD) of two integers. He proved it worked using logic, executed it manually and in recent times it is implemented as computer code to do the same thing.
Another algorithm would be one to generate a tablebase for chess.
There are simple algorithms to play perfect chess as well. Unfortunately they require either stupendous time or stupendous precalculated data (such as a 32-piece tablebase).
Here, Elroch, you're making a mistake in confusing Euclid's algorithm, which is a precise order of logical operations to achieve a definite end within a perfectly ordered, abstract and yet precise logical construction within mathematics; and an algorithm required for situations of imperfect information.
No, I am not. See next response.
You claim that chess is a game of perfect information
As does everyone who understands this topic adequately. Try asking one of them.
[snip]
It is false that there is a strategy-stealing strategy for white. It would need to cover EVERY black response.
No it would only need to occur at any one point in the game.
It is false that there is a strategy-stealing strategy for white. It would need to cover EVERY black response.
No it would only need to occur at any one point in the game.
Strategy-stealing is a way to construct an ENTIRE STRATEGY for one player from a strategy for the other player. This means a decision process for every position that can arise when executing the "stolen strategy".
No, your words (penultimate post) are not what an algorithm is. Compare it to a good definition (or the wikipedia article).
For example, Euclid's algorithm is a systematic procedure for finding the greatest common divisor (GCD) of two integers. He proved it worked using logic, executed it manually and in recent times it is implemented as computer code to do the same thing.
Another algorithm would be one to generate a tablebase for chess.
There are simple algorithms to play perfect chess as well. Unfortunately they require either stupendous time or stupendous precalculated data (such as a 32-piece tablebase).
Here, Elroch, you're making a mistake in confusing Euclid's algorithm, which is a precise order of logical operations to achieve a definite end within a perfectly ordered, abstract and yet precise logical construction within mathematics; and an algorithm required for situations of imperfect information.
No, I am not. See next response.
You claim that chess is a game of perfect information
As does everyone who understands this topic adequately. Try asking one of them.
[snip]
Argument from authority and a weak one at that since what you are talking about is not knowledge. It's terminology. Chess is assumed to be P.I. since we have full information. However, to become perfect it (information) needs to be interpreted. The difficulty of that is the reason GMs and even strong computers can lose.
If you can't see that, you're less capable than I take you to be, which is middling-to-bright but maybe not sufficiently clever to think well for yourself. Quite simply, if you cannot see that ties in with everything I've been saying about algorithms and the differences between different types of algorithms, you are not even that. You would only be parroting stuff you once learned and not capable of carrying on a conversation with highly intelligent people. Like me..... ?
Now just stop making arguments from authority like "my daddy's bigger than yours". Mind you, in this day and age, that would certainly have different connotations from what it did have! 
You blundered. Search for anything on chess and perfect information. You will find very few sources that do not enlighten you. Particularly see the list of common questions and their answers in the search results.
https://www.google.com/search?q=chess+perfect+information
It is false that there is a strategy-stealing strategy for white. It would need to cover EVERY black response.
No it would only need to occur at any one point in the game.
Strategy-stealing is a way to construct an ENTIRE STRATEGY for one player from a strategy for the other player. This means a decision process for every position that can arise when executing the "stolen strategy".
I don't call it strategy-stealing. That's someone-else's terminology so tell me where I call it that. However, since you clearly confuse a chess move with strategy, one wonders how confused YOU really are! You've shown you don't know what strategy means.
@8056
"if it was then that would be an ultra weak solve"
++ For all practical purpose Chess has been ultra-weakly solved and the game-theoretic value of the initial position is a draw.