Yes, like all the supposed 'alts' and 'hidden messages"
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Jun 19, 2024
0
#9443
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@12589
"Elroch will do anything to win an argument."
++ He just makes a fool of himself claiming 1 a4 or 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6 win for white.
Misrepresentation. No post of mine has claimed this.
Did you post an untruth because you are dishonest or because you are incompetent?
You claimed it may not be a loss for white. That's enough to show your incompetence. Ty is being ironic. Lost on you.
Would you say that a ticket in a 1 in a quadrillion lottery could not win? If you answer that it could not, you need a refresher in epistemiology.
llama_l wrote:
When someone says they notice things that others usually miss, including hidden meaning to ordinary things, that's a common sign of schizophrenia, just sayin' The person assumes they're just more observant, but in reality others don't notice these things because they don't exist.
Ooh, fun. Let me roleplay a response to this!
"These things certainly exist. I'm just of a higher intelligence than most - including you - so I'm one of the few people capable of perceiving and understanding these things. If you were as smart as me, you'd realize I'm indisputably correct in any and all of my assertions.
But alas, I stand alone on this mental precipice, doomed to perceive more than all and fated to be forever doubted by the tiny minds that surround me ..."
person assumes they're just more observant, but in reality others don't notice these things because they don't exist.
except in chess (& a hobuncha other stuff in life...& death too).
the most int part (AI is gonna help IMMENSELY here) is reeval-reassign every pieces value as the game goes - correctly ! btw do we have the 1st 20-ply completely described yet ?
llama_l wrote:
MaetsNori wrote:
llama_l wrote:
When someone says they notice things that others usually miss, including hidden meaning to ordinary things, that's a common sign of schizophrenia, just sayin' The person assumes they're just more observant, but in reality others don't notice these things because they don't exist.
Ooh, fun. Let me roleplay a response to this!
"These things certainly exist. I'm just of a higher intelligence than most - including you - so I'm one of the few people capable of perceiving and understanding these things. If you were as smart as me, you'd realize I'm indisputably correct in any and all of my assertions.
But alas, I stand alone on this mental precipice, doomed to perceive more than all and fated to be forever doubted by the tiny minds that surround me ..."
He also takes it pretty personally sometimes... "I thought you were ok [insert name here] in fact I almost liked you, but you're a horrible person blah blah blah."
I haven't been following this thread closely, so I wasn't aware you were talking about someone on this thread, specifically. I was just roleplaying the common "I'm smarter than you all, but you're all too dumb to see it" persona that we all see so often on the internet. But now I see who you meant.
To be fair, it appears that a lot of members here seem to be at each other's throats over this debate ... maybe there's something about the topic that gets everyone riled up.
@12598
"the result of the positions to which you referred would become CERTAIN if they were weakly solved" ++ No. If they were ultra-weakly solved. 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? is a white loss, ultra-weakly solved.
1 a4 is a draw just like 1 e4, but 1 a4 cannot be better than 1 e4 by logic.
It is unthinkable that 1 e4 would be a draw and 1 a4 would be a white win.
@12604
"In the context of solving chess, saying 2.Ba6 is lost for white is neither important nor even interesting." ++ 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? can be pruned without even 1 ply of calculation.
@12610
"ICCF GMs have solved chess" ++ The 110 draws of 110 games in the ICCF WC Finals are at least part of the weak solution of Chess.
"Look at this game, it was a draw, perfect chess is a draw, therefore this game was perfect, therefore the players have solved chess"
++ Look at all 110 ICCF WC Finals games, all draws, not a single decisive game, therefore chess is a draw, and these games are perfect, and constitute at least part of the weak solution of Chess.
@12609
"We don't have the first few ply solved, but we have solved the last few ply (EGTB)"
++ We have 110 redundant chains of average 39 moves that link the initial position to the last few ply (EGTB).
@12604
"do we have the 1st 20-ply completely described yet ?"
++ We have 110 perfect games of 39 moves average i.e. 78 ply linking the initial position to known draws. It is redundant, but not yet complete.
Jun 19, 2024
0
#9453
playerafar wrote:
Regarding mathematical induction ...
k is usually an integer. A nonzero positive integer.
Could there be cases where k is fractional or irrational or transcendental?...
This my be of interest.
‘Would you say that a ticket in a 1 in a quadrillion lottery could not win? If you answer that it could not, you need a refresher in epistemiology.’
this analogy is faulty because in the lottery, the possibility of winning is slim yet absolute, while the possibility of white winning or even drawing after blundering its bishop is absurd. or iow, the possibility may not exist at all.
llama_l wrote:
I think not a single person in this topic is normal... buncha weirdos.
That's true
Jun 19, 2024
0
#9456
Sillver1 wrote:
‘Would you say that a ticket in a 1 in a quadrillion lottery could not win? If you answer that it could not, you need a refresher in epistemiology.’
this analogy is faulty because in the lottery, the possibility of winning is slim yet absolute, while the possibility of white winning or even drawing after blundering its bishop is absurd. or iow, the possibility may not exist at all.
Show us against SF16.1.
(If you win as Black I can post you an example that doesn't - two if you like.)
llama_l wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
the possibility may not exist at all.
In other words, we might express it as a probability...
express what as a probability? the possibility or our state of knowledge about it?
MARattigan wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
‘Would you say that a ticket in a 1 in a quadrillion lottery could not win? If you answer that it could not, you need a refresher in epistemiology.’
this analogy is faulty because in the lottery, the possibility of winning is slim yet absolute, while the possibility of white winning or even drawing after blundering its bishop is absurd. or iow, the possibility may not exist at all.
Show us against SF16.1.
(If you win as Black I can post you an example that doesn't - two if you like.)
you make no sense. i’m talking solely about the possibility.
Jun 19, 2024
0
#9459
Sillver1 wrote:
llama_l wrote:
Sillver1 wrote:
the possibility may not exist at all.
In other words, we might express it as a probability...
express what as a probability? the possibility or our state of knowledge about it?
The probability about our state of knowledge about it is know:0 don't know:1.
But re making no sense, I can show you that not winning as Black after 2.a6 is definitely possible. You seemed to claim otherwise.
maybe i wasn’t clear enough, so i asked gpt to rephrase..
Probability vs. Possibility:
• Lottery: In a lottery with odds of 1 in a quadrillion, each ticket still has a non-zero probability of winning. The event of winning, while highly unlikely, is still within the realm of possibility.
• Chess Game: When White blunders a bishop, the chances of White winning or even drawing can be effectively zero if the blunder is decisive and assuming perfect play from the opponent. The possibility of White winning may not exist at all if the position is completely lost.
It seems you still do not understand the difference between something being very likely and it being certain. I understand that you conflate high confidence and certainty. This is a common amateur error regarding uncertainty.
If you buy a ticket in a lottery where 1 in a trillion wins, it is very unlikely that you will win. It is however DEFINITELY NOT TRUE that you know you won't win. Same for 1 in a quadrillion. And so on.
How difficult is that?
Note that the result of the positions to which you referred would become CERTAIN if they were weakly solved.
It's worth emphasising that the purpose of a mathematical proof is not to convince yourself that something is true. It is to add a truth to the body of what is known for certain. This is a strict discipline, not like playing a game.