"For all practical purpose chess is ultra-weakly solved and the game theoretical value of the initial position is a draw."
you claim "for all practical purposes". thats not what the argument is about. the argument is about a HARD SOLUTION, and a HARD PROOF.
for all this talk about others not understanding the definition of ultra weakly solved, you sure get that definition INCREDIBLY wrong.
Hey, @tygxc, why do you keep insisting that chess is a draw without any formal proof?
he doesnt have a formal proof, he just says "1 tempo is worth less than a pawn and you need a pawn to win" and "ooh look at these high level engine games, they couldnt have made any wrong moves...."
Stockfish is actually kinda dumb I managed to trick it with a queens gambit esc position when I was around 1600(my friends like to cheat) stockfish is good but not good enough to solve chess yet
@9341
The ICCF World Championship Finals are being played with 17 ICCF (grand)masters with engines at average 5 days per move.
So far 104 draws out of 104 games, all perfect games with optimal play by both sides.
@9340
"1 tempo is worth less than a pawn"
++ Yes 1 tempo = 1/3 pawn.
You need +1 pawn to win.
You can queen a pawn, but you cannot queen a tempo.
"++ Yes 1 tempo = 1/3 pawn."
[[citation needed]]
formal proof required.
"You need +1 pawn to win.
You can queen a pawn, but you cannot queen a tempo."
in fact, i have a direct counterexample to this claim, but im going to wait until you find it for yourself.
make a formal proof.
@9341
The ICCF World Championship Finals are being played with 17 ICCF (grand)masters with engines at average 5 days per move.
So far 104 draws out of 104 games, all perfect games with optimal play by both sides.
and how do you know its optimal play? you dont know how the other 10^17 games could have went.
@9333
"chess is a draw without any formal proof?"
++ I gave formal proofs.
Inductive proof. Observe the 104 games in the present ICCF World Championship Finals.
This is the strongest chess on the planet.
17 ICCF (grand)masters with engines at average 5 days / move.
All 104 games are draws.
Hypothesis: chess is not a draw.
Then all 104 games must contain an odd number of errors (?): 1, 3, 5...
E.g.
0 error: 0 games
1 error: 35 games
2 errors: 0 games
3 errors: 38 games
4 errors: 0 games
5 errors: 21 games
6 errors: 0 games
7 errors: 8 games
8 errors: 0 games
9 errors: 2 games
10 errors: 0 games
It is absurd, that only odd numbers of errors would occur, hence the hypothesis was false,
hence Chess is a draw.
Deductive proof:White has the initiative, an advantage of 1 tempo.
We know from gambits that 1 pawn in the opening is worth 3 tempi.
We know that 1 pawn is enough to win: by queening it.
Thus 1 tempo is not enough to win.
Thus Chess is a draw.
@9346
"how do you know its optimal play?"
++ After the first part of the inductive proof we have derived that Chess is a draw.
So the 104 drawn games in the ICCF World Championship Finals must contain an even number of errors (?): 0, 2, 4, 6...
E.g.
0 error: 35 games
1 error: 0 games
2 errors: 38 games
3 errors: 0 games
4 errors: 21 games
5 errors: 0 games
6 errors: 8 games
7 errors: 0 games
8 errors: 2 games
9 errors: 0 games
It is absurd, that all errors would come in pairs, especially while 17 different entities are playing.
Thus the distribution must be
0 errors: 104 games
1 errors: 0 games
2 errors: 0 games
3 errors: 0 games
4 errors: 0 games
So the 104 ICCF World Championship Finals' draws are optimal play from both sides.
Exactly, tygxc is just claiming nonsense without proof.
i think he missed a basic proof logic class and just sees whatever he feels like as a "formal proof". he's got so many basic logical oversights i think he tricked us into thinking that he actually had any sort of background in game theory with him throwing around the different type of game solution terms. Because he's clearly now shown a complete lack of knowledge and that he just saw the terms and thought he understood them.
nobody with any semblence of knowledge of game theory would say "for all practical purpose, chess has been ultra weakly solved", because that's literally an oxymoron. a game is either considered solved or not solved. proven or not proven.
so many of his claims actually makes "sense" now if you consider his arguments as coming from the perspective of someone who doesnt understand game theory or math proofs at all.
@9344
"++ Yes 1 tempo = 1/3 pawn."
[[citation needed]]
'Should the opponent offer any material, even a Pawn, which in your estimation you may capture without danger, it is advisable to take the offered piece,
even if as a result full development is retarded for one or two moves.
If as a result of the capture full development will be retarded more than two moves,
then it is doubtful whether the capture should be made.
It might be risked with the White pieces but never with the Black' - Capablanca.
"++ After the first part of the inductive proof we have derived that Chess is a draw.
no proof given. you just claimed a tempo was not enough, and as everyone around you has pointed out, thats not a proof. you just claimed a tempo was not enough and didnt provide any evidence.
"It is absurd, that all errors would come in pairs, especially while 17 different entities are playing."
you dont get to say something is "absurd" and invalidate it. thats not how proof works.
you are literally claiming that something doesnt exist because it isnt convenient for your argument.
here's me using some of your logic:
'its "absurd" that the game could be anything but a black win'. therefore, chess must be a forced win for black.
3 tempi = 1 pawn is no more valid than:
Pawn = 1
Knight = 3
Bishop = 3.25
Rook = 5
Queen = 9
The above are all human approximations. They do not hold up even now with Stockfish, Alpha Zero, or Leela, which have different valuations.
This debate is still in exactly the same state it was years ago. Chess is not proven a draw with best play (nor indeed can humans or current engines determine "best play"). A solution is not forthcoming in our lifetimes, technology being at least 10-12 orders of magnitude short of tackling the issue (10^43 positions to traverse). Quantum computing will not do it, and cloud computing will not do it. Moore's Law is also going to fall woefully short for the foreseeable future.
Tygxc will opine that that he can arbitrarily shave away 20+ orders of magnitude. He cannot. He still has nothing to show, thus his fall back to ICCF draw results, which prove nothing. He will cite the work of people who have told him flat out his numbers are bollocks...so take everything with a big grain of salt.
Claiming to "know" chess is a draw is also a futile assertion.
One tempi can =1/3 a pawn or 6 pawns depends on the position
"Once 7 men are reached castling rights are forfeited."
I never heard of such a rule.
------------------------------------
And yes there is no proof chess is a draw with best play.
Having said that though - that doesn't mean that players shouldn't take an attitude that if nobody makes a mistake the game will likely end in a draw.
There's a high percentage of GM draws.
But - that doesn't mean no mistake was made.
It can mean nobody made a big enough mistake that was also exploited properly by the other player. Which is more practical.
The lower the level of play - the more mistakes on both sides and the bigger the mistakes that are made and the 'objectively' easier to exploit.
Although the ability of the players to exploit mistakes is reduced.
There is no such thing as 'weakly solved'.
Except for those who wish ...
then you can have reverse time travel - one object in four places at the same instant - objects moving at 100 times the speed of light - getting something from nothing and nothing from something ... anything you want.
You can win the Powerball lottery 10 straight times - anything goes.
But tyg is having a lot of fun with his harmless wishfulness.
Does it disinform?
Not in the harmful ways that things like denials of science can do.
@9358
"There is no such thing as 'weakly solved'."
++ There is, e.g. Schaeffer's proof how to draw Checkers.
Please read Prof. van den Herik's scientific paper Games solved: Now and in the future.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370201001527
@9357
"Once 7 men are reached castling rights are forfeited. I never heard of such a rule."
++ It is no rule, it is a practical observation. You cannot construct a reasonable game that reaches a 7-men position with castling rights intact. Players castle, or move a king, or the rooks.
"there is no proof chess is a draw with best play"
++ I presented an inductive proof as well as a deductive proof. Ii took care to explain in simple terms, but If you still do not understand either, then you do not need to be ashamed.
"There's a high percentage of GM draws. But - that doesn't mean no mistake was made."
++ At the 2024 Toronto Candidates' Tournament they made 1.1 error / game average.
However, an engine at 3 minutes / move is much stronger than a grandmaster at 3 minutes / move. An ICCF (grand)master with engine at 5 days/move average is much stronger than an engine at 3 minutes / move. At this year's ICCF World Championship Finals they have reached no mistakes as proven.
"It can mean nobody made a big enough mistake" ++ There are no small or big mistakes.
Per GM Hübner there are only errors (?) that change the game state from a draw to a loss, or back from a win to a draw, or blunders or double mistakes (??) that change a win to a loss.
"there is no proof chess is a draw with best play"
++ I presented an inductive proof as well as a deductive proof. Ii took care to explain in simple terms, but If you still do not understand either, then you do not need to be ashamed.
Yeah, you go ahead and let us know when these "proofs" are accepted by anyone that matters.
To get better at chess you kinda have to be good at everything that includes the time control (you can be better in classical than in blitz of vise versa ) but you have to be good at everything