@12364
You keep denying the truth even confronted with massive evidence.
That must be some combination of psychologically motivated dishonesty and lack of intelligence.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Jun 18, 2024
0
#9303
Do you really not understand the difference between proving something and convincing yourself of something?
Have you never studied any mathematics past middle school?
Did you never even get to where you learnt what a proof was or were you such a poor student that you forgot it completely?
These are not rhetorical questions.
A solution is a proof. Convincing yourself is not one.
@12366
"Have you never studied any mathematics" ++ More than you.
"a poor student" ++ No, on the contrary.
"A solution is a proof" ++ You cannot impose your own puristic, agnostic opinions.
You cannot impose more severe demands on a weak solution of Chess than on weak solutions of Checkers, Losing Chess, Nine Men's Morris, Connect Four.
Chess is a draw.
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? loses for white.
Those are facts. There is massive evidence. You are free to believe Chess is a white, or even a black win, or that 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? draws or even wins for white.
@12368
proof = the evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or fact - Merriam-Webster
@12368
"there is no chain of syllogistic premises leading to that conclusion."
It is deductive.
White has the initiative, moves first.
White is up 1 tempo.
3 tempi = 1 pawn
1 pawn is enough to win: queen it
you can queen a pawn, but you cannot queen a tempo
Thus the white advantage of the initiative worth 1/3 pawn is not enough to win. Chess is a draw.
Jun 18, 2024
0
#9307
Yes, it is a language problem. @tygxc does not understand what "solving a game" means (as used in the peer-reviewed literature on the topic). On several occasions he has indicated he has false beliefs about the way peer-reviewed work uses the term (more specifically, the meaning of 'weak solution'). He has avoided fixing this despite patient explanation and referral to the literature.
It is important that people discuss the same topic rather than merely using the same words. Where ever some uses the same words to refer to something different, they only add noise and obfuscation by appearing to discuss the topic but in fact not doing so. There is even less excuse for doing this when an error has been pointed out.
Everyone should always be wary in general of incorrect assumptions that if a word is the same it refers to the same concept. Of course the very worst of all is when someone does not even know they are talking about a different concept or insists on using language incorrectly after this has been brought to their attention.
@12368
"very strong indication"
++ Those are weasel words. It is either true or false.
Chess is either a draw, a white win, or a black win.
The deductive argument as well as the 110 draws out of 110 games in the ICCF WC Finals compels the mind to accept that chess is a draw.
Jun 18, 2024
0
#9309
All well-defined propositions are either true or false. Very many of these are uncertain. So, as usual, your post is nonsense, with the exception of that latter point. We are well aware that your mind is compelled to be certain that chess is a draw because you are oblivious to the fundamental difference between a high probability and certainty.
@12371
"what solving a game means"
++ Again:
"weakly solved means that for the initial position a strategy has been determined to achieve the game-theoretic value against any opposition" per Games solved: Now and in the future
I know you have a puristic interpretation of all opposition meaning all legal moves, while I have a more realistic interpretation of all legal moves that strive against achieving the game-theoretic value
to oppose = to strive against, resist - Merriam Webster
1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? does not oppose, i.e. strive against black achieving the game-theoretic value of a draw.
Jun 18, 2024
0
#9311
Optimissed wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@12368
"very strong indication"
++ Those are weasel words. It is either true or false.
Chess is either a draw, a white win, or a black win.
The deductive argument as well as the 110 draws out of 110 games in the ICCF WC Finals compels the mind to accept that chess is a draw.
I suggest you go for accuracy rather than a condemnation of anything that frightens you. Objectivity is the attempt to bring in and accurately relate all the variables. Go for it.
So yes, it is either true or false but we are trying to establish whether it's true or false and that doesn't include assuming that we know the answer already.
@tygxc, see that @Optimissed also understands this point.
@12375
"you go for accuracy" ++ That is what I do.
"a condemnation of anything that frightens you" ++ Nothing frightens me, I do not even condemn the purists, or the agnosticists, or the trolls.
"we are trying to establish whether it's true or false" ++ The evidence is massive that Chess is a draw, i.e. the ultra-weak solution. We are trying to establish how to achieve the draw, i.e. the weak solution. I say the 110 consecutive ICCF WC Finals draws are at least part of the weak solution of Chess. These provide a redundant, but not yet complete answer.
@12382
"Why can't you let that go and move on" ++ It is Elroch who perpetually accuses me of not understanding what weakly solved means. He holds a puristic view about 'all opposition' that gets nobody anywhere, while I hold a more realistic view.
"not knowing it reflects on the actual strength in chess of the commentator"
++ Maybe, I think it is a religious purism (ALL legal moves) and agnosticism (we cannot tell).
"We don't need to be constrained to inhabit a world of mathematical purism"
++ Mathematics is a very useful science, with many practical applications.
Most of mathematics has been derived to handle real world problems.
Some mathematics has some beauty in itself, but no practical use at all.
"or are you in some great fight of the dinosaurs to establish who has the best intellect here?"
++ No not at all. If I want to fight, then I play chess. I do not need to boast about intellect.
I find it funny to be insulted as having low intellect.
I am only interested in the subject of solving Chess and am only interested in the truth.
Jun 18, 2024
0
#9314
tygxc wrote:
@12382
"Why can't you let that go and move on" ++ It is Elroch who perpetually accuses me of not understanding what weakly solved means. He holds a puristic view about 'all opposition'
It's not a "view" it's the CORRECT understanding of the meaning of the term "weakly solved". EXACTLY as used in the solution of checkers.
that gets nobody anywhere, while I hold a more realistic view.
No. The realistic view is that it is impractical to solve chess.
It is not "realistic" to do something that is definitely different and to call it "solving chess". That is either delusional or obfuscatory.
As an excellent analogy, it is sometimes possible to prove that a number is prime. It is also sometimes possible to find properties of a number that make it extremely likely that it is prime without proving that it is a prime. The two are different things. The latter is NOT "proving that a number is prime". This is true even when the number is too big for it to be practical to prove it is prime properly. See https://www.britannica.com/science/pseudoprime
"not knowing it reflects on the actual strength in chess of the commentator"
++ Maybe, I think it is a religious purism (ALL legal moves) and agnosticism (we cannot tell).
Actually, you have been the one who has been indulging in pontification and inappropriate claims of infallibility.
My analogy above led to the wiki article on Carmichael numbers, where you can find many examples of conjectures based on heuristic arguments. Some of these conjectures have been later proven, others not. Conjectures are sometimes proven false. The relevance of this is that you are:
- asserting conjectures
- providing heuristic arguments
- falsely claiming this amounts to a proof
hi
Luke-Jaywalker wrote:
when Optimissed meets an immovable object, what happens ?
He gets muted, after blowing a gasket.
don't need to be constrained to inhabit a world of mathematical purism, which is an ideal world, only loosely related to reality
perfect
Jun 18, 2024
0
#9318
@Optimissed, firstly, no, I am not stating my "opinion", any more than I would be expressing an opinion if I said that 1+1 is not 3, but is 2. The mathematical sciences are not made up of a set of opinions, they are made up of a set of things that are known to be true. Note that it is not only not an opinion, it is also not "mine". I am communicating what is known.
Are you familiar with the concept of a proof? Are you aware that a weak solution of a game is a proof of the game value? If you look at a paper on the first part of the solution of checkers, you will see a reference to the proof tree (which is the analysis that rigorously proves the result from a given position, by reaching a position with known value at the end of every line). A proof tree does not just deal with opponent moves that seem playable, it deals with all LEGAL opponent moves, because proofs are rigorous.
I am actually rather sure that you understand that @tygxc uses heuristics (vague positional understanding and rough rules) and empirical evidence (game results and unreliable evaluations) to support a conjecture, then describes this as "solving chess". You have drawn attention to this on occasion.
@12397
"I am not stating my opinion" ++ You are imposing your interpretation. Using some CAPITALS does not make you right. Besides, laughing or insulting are no valid ways of proof.
"mathematical sciences are not made up of a set of opinions, they are made up of a set of things that are known to be true." ++ No. The Riemann hypothesis, Goldbach's conjecture and many more are assumed to be true but not yet proven. Ramanujan was famous for producing theorems without proof and claimed a Hindu Goddess told him in his dream.
"Are you aware that a weak solution of a game is a PROOF of the game value?" ++ Are you aware that a weak solution of a game is unnecessary for an ultra-weak solution? Example: Hex.
"@tygxc uses heuristics" ++ I use Chess knowledge.
That is allowed: 'Next to brute-force methods it is often beneficial to incorporate knowledge-based methods in game-solving programs.' Games solved: Now and in the future
"empirical evidence (game results"
++ Yes, 110 draws out of 110 games in the ICCF WC Finals, at average 5 days/move with 2 servers of 90 million positions per second, the strongest chess on the planet.
"and unreliable evaluations" ++ No. The 110 ICCF WC Finals games link the initial position to reliably known drawn positions in average 39 moves and in a redundant way.
All good points.
Though, wouldn't it also be safe to say that the high frequency of draws in ICCF doesn't necessarily prove that chess is solved ("softly", or whatever the correct term is) - as it might also simply prove that players with access to all the same tools will likely all play at the same level?
In other words, I'm assuming the ICCF top players all have access to the same engines and databases as each other - so isn't it rather expected that they'll all be drawing each other in their games ... ?
Proof that Chess is a draw already is the deductive argument that the initiative is a white advantage of +1 tempo = +0.33 pawn = not enough to win, especially since each further move dilutes the advantage.
this is why I'm partially convinced there's a sort of language misunderstanding on tygxc's end. nobody with a math education beyond middle school would call that a "proof", unless "proof" translates to something weaker in the different language that tygxc is native in.
Yes, he keeps making that same elementary blunder.
It's just like some flake saying "But science is just a theory" over and over again, even after you patiently explain to them what the word "theory" means in the relevant context. It must be some sort of combination of psychologically motivated dishonesty and lack of intelligence.