Just to explain, chess is not perfect information, because although we have the data, we don't necessarily know what it means. In effect, knowing what the data means is solving chess. Therefore, believing that it's a perfect information game is putting the cart before the horse.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Jan 31, 2023
0
#7903
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@8047
"you have to find that tree first"
++ Yes: for black play the top 1 Stockfish move after 17 s calculation on a 10^9 nodes/s cloud engine, for white explore the top w (e.g. w = 4) Stockfish moves.
Let us take an example with this ICCF game as seeded line.
1 e4. Grandmaster E with cloud engine e will work on this.
Grandmaster D with cloud engine d will work on 1 d4.
Grandmaster C with cloud engine c will work on other first moves that do not transpose, notably 1 c4 and 1 Nf3.
Grandmaster E and cloud engine e will never have to look at any position with a white pawn on e2, shrinking the search space.
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.
[snip]
that doesnt work lmao. you prove absolutely nothing, literally by the second move you have a false assumption
Indeed! It is hilarious.
In order to try to provide some sort of solution within a tight time and cost frame, it's necessary to do something like this. It isn't a false assumption by the second move, since it's acceptable to assume, with about 100% chance of being right, that black cannot win by force. However, it obviously isn't to the taste of those who, probably wrongly, believe that a deductive solution should be possible. I think there are problems regarding what people expect of deduction. In a system like this, which although it's technically closed, is not perfect information, we really can't depend on deduction, because there are too many unknowns. Indeed, I think that tygxc is somewhat along the right lines. I can't see it though, in a cost frame of $3 million and a time frame of five years. What he is proposing is scientifically based, rather than purely deductively based.
Chess is a game of perfect information.
As always, the wise thing would be learn what the term means before arguing.
Jan 31, 2023
0
#7904
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@8047
"you have to find that tree first"
++ Yes: for black play the top 1 Stockfish move after 17 s calculation on a 10^9 nodes/s cloud engine, for white explore the top w (e.g. w = 4) Stockfish moves.
Let us take an example with this ICCF game as seeded line.
1 e4. Grandmaster E with cloud engine e will work on this.
Grandmaster D with cloud engine d will work on 1 d4.
Grandmaster C with cloud engine c will work on other first moves that do not transpose, notably 1 c4 and 1 Nf3.
Grandmaster E and cloud engine e will never have to look at any position with a white pawn on e2, shrinking the search space.
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.
[snip]
that doesnt work lmao. you prove absolutely nothing, literally by the second move you have a false assumption
Indeed! It is hilarious.
In order to try to provide some sort of solution within a tight time and cost frame, it's necessary to do something like this. It isn't a false assumption by the second move, since it's acceptable to assume, with about 100% chance of being right, that black cannot win by force. However, it obviously isn't to the taste of those who, probably wrongly, believe that a deductive solution should be possible. I think there are problems regarding what people expect of deduction. In a system like this, which although it's technically closed, is not perfect information, we really can't depend on deduction, because there are too many unknowns. Indeed, I think that tygxc is somewhat along the right lines. I can't see it though, in a cost frame of $3 million and a time frame of five years. What he is proposing is scientifically based, rather than purely deductively based.
No, it is not acceptable to include reasonable guesses as part of a proof. This is not a difficult point.
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@8047
"you have to find that tree first"
++ Yes: for black play the top 1 Stockfish move after 17 s calculation on a 10^9 nodes/s cloud engine, for white explore the top w (e.g. w = 4) Stockfish moves.
Let us take an example with this ICCF game as seeded line.
1 e4. Grandmaster E with cloud engine e will work on this.
Grandmaster D with cloud engine d will work on 1 d4.
Grandmaster C with cloud engine c will work on other first moves that do not transpose, notably 1 c4 and 1 Nf3.
Grandmaster E and cloud engine e will never have to look at any position with a white pawn on e2, shrinking the search space.
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.
[snip]
that doesnt work lmao. you prove absolutely nothing, literally by the second move you have a false assumption
Indeed! It is hilarious.
In order to try to provide some sort of solution within a tight time and cost frame, it's necessary to do something like this. It isn't a false assumption by the second move, since it's acceptable to assume, with about 100% chance of being right, that black cannot win by force. However, it obviously isn't to the taste of those who, probably wrongly, believe that a deductive solution should be possible. I think there are problems regarding what people expect of deduction. In a system like this, which although it's technically closed, is not perfect information, we really can't depend on deduction, because there are too many unknowns. Indeed, I think that tygxc is somewhat along the right lines. I can't see it though, in a cost frame of $3 million and a time frame of five years. What he is proposing is scientifically based, rather than purely deductively based.
No, it is not acceptable to include reasonable guesses as part of a proof. This is not a difficult point.
I thought I used the word solution and not proof. Indeed, looking at it, I did use the word solution and not the word proof. "Some sort of solution". Obviously that's to the problems we are faced with in solving chess.
Optimissed wrote:
You aren't aware that there's always been a glitch, which they haven't bothered to repair? If you delete the wrong part of what you're quoting, you're then unable to write in the box. I hadn't understood the pattern because it's quite complex.
Missed this one before. Ummm, yes I am aware. I've been posting here for a decade and I quote and then edit every reply I make to remove excess nested comments (with very few exceptions). It's certainly annoying, but not particularly complex.
They used some form of TinyMCE-like free source code to create the editor, and it has not received much love over the years. The analysis editor added on is by the far the most work.
Jan 31, 2023
0
#7907
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
mpaetz did u see the part where i said that there is/was some definition confusion? also, you are making a mistake on a difference that optimissed and I pointed out. that is the difference between a scientific proof and a math proof.
whether the sun is egg is a scientific question. the complexity of solving chess is a math question.
also physics at that level is so freaking complex that optimissed cant be faulted for not knowing exactly what it was about (what he said was also somewhat rhetorical).
To quote American humorist Foghorn Leghorn; "That's a joke son. I say that's a joke." Not meant to be taken seriously. Only pointing out how ridiculous some comments here have been.
Jan 31, 2023
0
#7908
tygxc wrote:
@8103
"Sveshnikov's plan: the conclusion has been reached before the investigation begins"
++ The aim of weakly solving Chess is not to ascertain that Chess is a draw, we already know that, but rather to establish how.
Exactly. You already have the conclusion and make sure you don't investigate enough possibilities to risk finding out it may be incorrect.
btickler wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
You aren't aware that there's always been a glitch, which they haven't bothered to repair? If you delete the wrong part of what you're quoting, you're then unable to write in the box. I hadn't understood the pattern because it's quite complex.
Missed this one before. Ummm, yes I am aware. I've been posting here for a decade and I quote and then edit every reply I make to remove excess nested comments (with very few exceptions). It's certainly annoying, but not particularly complex.
They used some form of TinyMCE-like free source code to create the editor, and it has not received much love over the years. The analysis editor added on is by the far the most work.
It's exactly as complex as having the keys of two nearby houses on a key ring and pulling the wrong one out. If you aren't thinking it can happen several times consecutively, until it sinks in.
Jan 31, 2023
0
#7910
tygxc wrote:
@8104
"so we will arbitrarily start from a few selected positions with 20% of the pieces eliminated"
++ No, not arbitrarily, but thoughtfully. That is why Sveshnikov first asked for good assistants and then for modern computers. That is why the grandmasters are as essential as the computers.
I presented a complete rationale starting from an ICCF WC draw as the seeded line.
One man's "thoughtful" is another man's "arbitrary". Your arbitrary selection of likeminded "experts" to cull the lines to be examined by admittedly imperfect machines cannot produce something that many people will consider a believable solution.
mpaetz wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@8103
"Sveshnikov's plan: the conclusion has been reached before the investigation begins"
++ The aim of weakly solving Chess is not to ascertain that Chess is a draw, we already know that, but rather to establish how.
Exactly. You already have the conclusion and make sure you don't investigate enough possibilities to risk finding out it may be incorrect.
I wouldn't mind betting that chess is a draw with someone who thinks it may not be. Or betting that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses for white with someone who thinks it may not. Neither would have a chance of winning, so I could make a lot of money on an accumulator, betting their dollar (or a £) against my million, a thousand times. Not that I have a million. I could borrow it against the certainty I would win. 
Jan 31, 2023
0
#7912
Optimissed wrote:
I wouldn't mind betting that chess is a draw with someone who thinks it may not be. Or betting that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses for white with someone who thinks it may not. neither would have a chance of winning so I could make a lot of l=money on an accumulator betting their dollar (or a £) against my million, a thousand times. Not that I have a million. I could borrow it against the certainty I would win.
As you have often expressed the opinion here that unassailable proof on these points is either impossible to obtain or lies countless years in the future you would face financial ruin.
I do agree with you on both points but you won't be able to produce any proof that will convince doubters to pay up.
mpaetz wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
I wouldn't mind betting that chess is a draw with someone who thinks it may not be. Or betting that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses for white with someone who thinks it may not. neither would have a chance of winning so I could make a lot of l=money on an accumulator betting their dollar (or a £) against my million, a thousand times. Not that I have a million. I could borrow it against the certainty I would win.
As you have often expressed the opinion here that unassailable proof on these points is either impossible to obtain or lies countless years in the future you would face financial ruin.
I do agree with you on both points but you won't be able to produce any proof that will convince doubters to pay up.
I wouldn't pay up either.
Jan 31, 2023
0
#7914
Someone show an advantage for Black, here;
Jan 31, 2023
0
#7917
Optimissed wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@8103
"Sveshnikov's plan: the conclusion has been reached before the investigation begins"
++ The aim of weakly solving Chess is not to ascertain that Chess is a draw, we already know that, but rather to establish how.
Exactly. You already have the conclusion and make sure you don't investigate enough possibilities to risk finding out it may be incorrect.
I wouldn't mind betting that chess is a draw with someone who thinks it may not be. Or betting that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses for white with someone who thinks it may not. Neither would have a chance of winning, so I could make a lot of money on an accumulator, betting their dollar (or a £) against my million, a thousand times. Not that I have a million. I could borrow it against the certainty I would win.
I'll take your bet that 1. e4 e5 2. Ba6 loses for white at odds of 10^24 to 1. How much do you want to stake?
£10 ^30 please.
Jan 31, 2023
0
#7919
tygxc wrote:
@8165
"you arent just calculating 1 black response"
++ I use the already calculated ICCF WC draws as seeded lines.
I take the black moves as they were and explore white alternatives.
thats making an assumption that black's moves are perfect/good. also, you need to calculate moves by black in response to white moves that differ from the seed.
Jan 31, 2023
0
#7920
"Probably 1 e4 e5 and 1 e4 c5 draw as well,
but we only need one to weakly solve Chess, so the other is not relevant."
actually no, both are relevant, because you dont know which one draws, wins, or loses. you choose one, and if that one fails, you have to check the other. but you cant gaurentee that the first one you choose works
@8047
"you have to find that tree first"
++ Yes: for black play the top 1 Stockfish move after 17 s calculation on a 10^9 nodes/s cloud engine, for white explore the top w (e.g. w = 4) Stockfish moves.
Let us take an example with this ICCF game as seeded line.
1 e4. Grandmaster E with cloud engine e will work on this.
Grandmaster D with cloud engine d will work on 1 d4.
Grandmaster C with cloud engine c will work on other first moves that do not transpose, notably 1 c4 and 1 Nf3.
Grandmaster E and cloud engine e will never have to look at any position with a white pawn on e2, shrinking the search space.
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.
[snip]
that doesnt work lmao. you prove absolutely nothing, literally by the second move you have a false assumption
Indeed! It is hilarious.
In order to try to provide some sort of solution within a tight time and cost frame, it's necessary to do something like this. It isn't a false assumption by the second move, since it's acceptable to assume, with about 100% chance of being right, that black cannot win by force. However, it obviously isn't to the taste of those who, probably wrongly, believe that a deductive solution should be possible. I think there are problems regarding what people expect of deduction. In a system like this, which although it's technically closed, is not perfect information, we really can't depend on deduction, because there are too many unknowns. Indeed, I think that tygxc is somewhat along the right lines. I can't see it though, in a cost frame of $3 million and a time frame of five years. What he is proposing is scientifically based, rather than purely deductively based.