@9109
"Is chess the same with tic tac toe?"
++ Yes, it is a forced draw as well, but many many times more complex.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
@9106
You have not disproved anything at all.
@9108
Look at the link: 95 games, 95 draws and counting. (GM Dronov exceeded the time limit of 50 days / 10 moves, presumably for some personal reason like illness.)
Black draws against 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, 1 Nf3, not in one, but in several ways.
The late GM Sveshnikov, 65+ World Champion and world expert on engine opening analysis, which he taught to aspiring Russian masters, was right in his interview.
Sveshnikov persumably did not drink any alcohol, as he was ill with cancer.
Some don't share your high opinion of Svesnikov,
Mar 13, 2024
0
#8945
@tygx, that is inductive reasoning which ALWAYS leaves uncertainty. Proclamations about the infallibility of Sveshnikov are not an adequate substitute for understanding the nature of reasoning.
@9113
Look at the link: 95 games that is centuries of computer time.
@9113
Sveshnikov was GM.
He was 65+ World Champion.
He taught aspiring masters and grandmasters how to analyse openings with engines.
Those are facts, not opinion.
Mar 13, 2024
0
#8948
Optimissed wrote:
I don't think you can disprove the idea that chess is a draw.
Logically speaking, you can do so if it is false and you can't do so if it isn't (this is true because chess is a finite game).
The way to prove that chess is a draw is to exhibit two strategies - one for each side - that are proven to always at least draw. The way to prove it is not is to exhibit a strategy for one side that is proven to always win.
A strategy is a methodical procedure to play a move against absolutely any opposing play. A bound on the result of a strategy can be proven in some cases.
@9116
"against absolutely any opposing play"
++ No, also logic is allowed.
Once proven black draws against 1 e4 1 d4 1 c4 1 Nf3, it is unnecessary to do the same for the 16 other, logically inferior white first moves.
Also logic awards a first move advantage to white, so it is unnecessary to prove white can draw.
@9119
I calculated before: 15,000 desktop years = 15 cloud engine years.
The link above of 95 drawn perfect games represents a few desktop centuries.
Mar 13, 2024
0
#8952
Optimissed wrote:
I don't think you can disprove the idea that chess is a draw. Maybe tygxc isn't the best arguer for unsolveability and you've shown up some faults there. I know he has some very odd ideas, often to do with some Russian GM called Sveshnikov and his nutty ideas.
tygxc is definitely not the best arguing, lol. .
Mar 13, 2024
0
#8953
"Once proven black draws against 1 e4 1 d4 1 c4 1 Nf3, it is unnecessary to do the same for the 16 other, logically inferior white first moves."
they literally havent been proven to be logically inferior. this is why people arent taking you seriously, with "logic" like that.
"Sveshnikov was GM.
He was 65+ World Champion.
He taught aspiring masters and grandmasters how to analyse openings with engines.
Those are facts, not opinion."
An opinion from a grandmaster is still an opinion LMFAO. Also, you gave an opinion taken out of context. if you read the full article, he was obviously exaggerating.
"Look at the link: 95 games that is centuries of computer time."
this means absolutely nothing. it's centuries of computer time... compared to the vastly larger amount needed to solve chess.
"I calculated before: 15,000 desktop years = 15 cloud engine years.
The link above of 95 drawn perfect games represents a few desktop centurie"
you actually didnt calculate before. I showed that you double counted nodes into moves analyzed and how u ended up with a figure wrong by a factor of over 1 million.
The article u cited used hundreds of millions of nodes per second to make ONE MOVE every minute With the accuracy of 99%. YOU CLAIMED THAT EVERY NODE HAD THE 99% ACCURACY IN YOUR CALCULATIONS.
Mar 13, 2024
0
#8954
finally @tygxc, you still havent even provided the proof that black doesnt win with perfect play.
you provided a claim, then i proved how that claim was wrong, then you refused to elaborate further.
in fact, math journals already agree with me, listing that the claim you gave cannot work because of the existence of zugzwang positions.
PRIME-07 wrote:
Chess is a puzzle and so, it is solvable. You know why? Because of the "first move" which the white player is obliged to have. Because of this "First move" this gives the player opportunity to develop first. If both players constantly plays the best move the advantage points that white has will never go down but rather go up linearly until to the point it will be forced mate. And if you're asking "how about the brilliant moves? Doesn't that apply to the equation?". Then the answer to that is brilliant moves will not exist if a certain mistake in any point in the game has not been done.
Chess is just a puzzle because of the "First move". That's just it.
People make computers play chess to discover theories that would somehow help solve chess. But computers are made from us humans who has a limit. For now it is not solved but soon it will be. Chess is made from us human who has a limit. So, it must also have a certain limit where it could be solved.
Congrats, you are about 1% along your way to understanding whether chess can be solved. Unfortunately, anyone can reach this point with 5-10 minutes pondering the matter.
Meanwhile....we had finally reduced he-who-shall-not-be-named to only posting ICCF updates, so don't disturb the peace 
...
Haha yes.
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
finally @tygxc, you still havent even provided the proof that black doesnt win with perfect play.
you provided a claim, then i proved how that claim was wrong, then you refused to elaborate further.
in fact, math journals already agree with me, listing that the claim you gave cannot work because of the existence of zugzwang positions.
Then the maths journals are mistaken. If black had a forced win in one position, that position couldn't be forced because white can lose a move. For every move white can lose, black can lose one but that doesn't help. In any case, such a game would be prey to the 75 move rule but it is illogical that black has a forced win from move one. Given the nature of deductive proof, any hypothetical proof that black can have a forced win would take longer than the present age of the universe at present computing speeds to prove and it would be impossible to store the results. In other words, the burden of proof is on you and such a proof is impossible. It is also contrary to inductive reasoning. White could continue to lose moves for every move black lost. It's also contrary to an understanding of chess. We know that white has a small opening advantage which eventually is lost. We know it through countless millions of games. Although you're suggesting something that you cannot possibly prove, it's also incorrect.
Findings so far:
1 d4 Nf6 draws (32 perfect games)
1 d4 d5 draws (13 perfect games)
1 e4 e5 draws (17 perfect games)
1 e4 c5 draws (14 perfect games)
1 Nf3 d5 draws (8 perfect games)
1 Nf3 Nf6 draws (8 perfect games)
A strategy to draw for either side: follow an ICCF WC drawn game for as long as possible,
then follow an engine set at 5 days / move
until it reaches a 7 men endgame table base draw or a prior 3-fold repetition of positions.
@9128
"what about from a table base perspective? "
++ That would imply a strong solution, which requires a prohibitive amount of calculation and time.
Only the weak solution is viable now, and the ICCF WC draws are at least close to that.
Mar 14, 2024
0
#8960
tygxc wrote:
@9119
I calculated before: 15,000 desktop years = 15 cloud engine years.
The link above of 95 drawn perfect games represents a few desktop centuries.
I know (from this discussion) that you have very little understanding of uncertainty and its quantification, but consider the following situation:
There are two urns. One contains 1000 white balls. The other contains 999 white balls and one black ball. You take 95 balls out of one of the urns, without being aware which urn it is. All the balls are white.
Which urn was it?
When you can correctly answer that question you will understand what you can infer from 95 draws.
Is chess the same with tic tac toe?