Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Jul 9, 2024
0
#10263
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
tygxc wrote:
@13480
"They'll generally fail a randomly chosen White win in KNNvKP for example."
- As it is a win, it is irrelevant to weakly solving chess, which is a draw, i.e. cannot be reached from the initial position with optimal play from both sides
tygxc assumes that chess is a draw as part of the solution - so by definition whatever tygxc comes up with cannot be a solution, as its own creation assumes what it is trying to prove.
in addition, a weak solution by definition deals with inoptimal moves. not only as part of the solution tree/algorithm itself, but in addition as the moves needed to calculate what the tree/algorithm is.
It's worth emphasizing that the reason it needs to deal with moves (by the opponent of a strategy) that are not optimal is that those moves are not already proven to be suboptimal. They cannot be ignored on the basis of an evaluation which is not only not proven reliable, but proven unreliable.
@13488
"a pawn doesn't win a game by itself" ++ It does: queen it to win. 1 e4 b5? is a white win.
"That is, in a given poisition it may be possible to checkmate your opponent if you're given four moves with no reply allowed between them." ++ Yes, but 3 tempi should be enough to win too, e.g. 1 e4 (1 tempo ahead) Nc6 2 d4 Nb8? 3 Bf4 (3 tempi ahead).
@13493
"They cannot be ignored on the basis of an evaluation which is not only not proven reliable, but proven unreliable."
++ Moves can be ignored based on logic alone. 1 e4 e5 2 Ba6? 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nd4?, 3 Nxe5? 3 Ng5? 3 Nh4? 3 Ng1 etc. etc.
Jul 9, 2024
0
#10266
tygxc wrote:
@13488
"a pawn doesn't win a game by itself" ++ It does: queen it to win. 1 e4 b5? is a white win.
"That is, in a given poisition it may be possible to checkmate your opponent if you're given four moves with no reply allowed between them." ++ Yes, but 3 tempi should be enough to win too, e.g. 1 e4 (1 tempo ahead) Nc6 2 d4 Nb8? 3 Bf4 (3 tempi ahead).
tygxc where's your proof that 1 tempo isnt enough?
we are still all waiting for it.
"++ Moves can be ignored based on logic alone"
what logic? you still havent provided any. you just assert that a position is losing without any proof.
Jul 9, 2024
0
#10267
tygxc wrote:
@13488
"a pawn doesn't win a game by itself" ++ It does: queen it to win. 1 e4 b5? is a white win.
Ignoring the awful example, the truth is that an extra pawn sometimes wins and sometimes doesn't. There are a vast number of examples of each.
Of course, you can always make up some ad hoc reason for the difference, starting from the conclusion (and if someone pretended the conclusion was different, you would come up with a different contradictory argument, showing their worthlessness).
@13490
"confuse weakly solving with a weak solution"
++ Weakly solving leads to a weak solution.
The point is to hop from the initial position to other drawn positions so as to reach a certain draw: 7-men endgame table base draw, prior 3-fold repetition, or certain draw as judged by both ICCF WC finalists and their engines.
White wins are pitfalls for black, black wins are pitfalls for white.
Optimal play by both sides avoids the pitfalls.
"Blunder rates in the endgame generally increase with increasing think time" ++ Nonsense
"humans get weaker much faster" ++ No, humans are better at long term planning.
That is why the humans play the openings, not their engines in ICCF WC Finals.
That is also why humans agree on draws in positions with not the slightest hope of winning, while engines would stupidly play on until a 3-fold repetition or the 50-moves rule.
Troitsky was better than present engines at KNN vs. KP.
"latest version of SF can't play 5 man chess perfectly"
++ But ICCF Finalist + twin servers 90 million positions/s during average 5 days can play 32 men perfectly. Troitsky analysed KNN vs. KP perfectly without any computer.
@13497
"an extra pawn sometimes wins and sometimes doesn't"
++ Close to the initial position an extra pawn wins. Of course some endgames with 1, 2, or even 3 extra pawns draw, but close to the initial position the side with the extra pawn can steer clear of those and convert the extra pawn.
Example:
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1072457
5 Qa4+ 'After this check Szabo might as well have resigned' - Bronstein
tygxc wrote:
@13465
"translate any gain or loss in chess in terms of tempi"
++ That is a bold claim. Right now engines translate any gain or loss in terms of pawn units,
so with 3 tempi = 1 pawn you could translate in terms of tempi as well.
However, 1 d4 d5 2 c4 is a good move while it challenges the center, but does not develop any piece into play, so is loss of tempo for the benefit of influence on the center.
In some positions yes other positions no sometimes I get one extra tempi and I completely dominate the game other times it's a dead draw depending on the position tempo is the biggest influence other times is doesn't matter hence 3tempi =1 pawn is false sometimes tempi is greater than a pawn sometimes it is not
Jul 9, 2024
0
#10271
tygxc wrote:
@13490
"[You] confuse weakly solving with a weak solution [as well as relying on your big red telephone to tell you the result of the starting position. ]"
++ Weakly solving leads to a weak solution.
The point is to hop from the initial position to other drawn positions so as to reach a certain draw:
But it's patently obvious to anyone other than yourself that if you're solving with a forward search you know neither whether the initial position or the positions to which you hop are drawn. You can only prove this by considering positions which don't appear in a final solution.
You're just confirming what I said.
7-men endgame table base draw, prior 3-fold repetition, or certain draw as judged by both ICCF WC finalists and their engines.
White wins are pitfalls for black, black wins are pitfalls for white.
Optimal play by both sides avoids the pitfalls.
"Blunder rates in the endgame generally increase with increasing think time" ++ Nonsense
Only if you want to ignore reality
"humans get weaker much faster" ++ No, humans are better at long term planning.
Presumably why they always lose. They must plan to from the start.
That is why the humans play the openings, not their engines in ICCF WC Finals.
That is also why humans agree on draws in positions with not the slightest hope of winning, while engines would stupidly play on until a 3-fold repetition or the 50-moves rule.
Troitsky was better than present engines at KNN vs. KP.
So am I.
"latest version of SF can't play 5 man chess perfectly"
++ But ICCF Finalist + twin servers 90 million positions/s during average 5 days can play 32 men perfectly. Troitsky analysed KNN vs. KP perfectly without any computer.
Er, that's five men. Count them on your fingers.
Jul 9, 2024
0
#10272
tygxc wrote:
@13497
"an extra pawn sometimes wins and sometimes doesn't"
++ Close to the initial position an extra pawn wins.
Right, so this position wins for black. Funny about the GM stats.
No, close to the opening position, there is little doubt that sometimes an extra pawn does NOT win.
@13502
"so this position wins for black"
'It loses by force' - Fischer
'I could not find a way for white to equalise' - Kramnik
See also Figure 4d
See also TCEC.
There is good reason why it is no longer played in top competition, except for an occasional surprise.
Lol tygxc is getting allies slowly look at the other two threads
Jul 9, 2024
0
#10276
tygxc, instead of downvoting, why dont you just provide the proof that you claim exists?
for example, where's the mathematically rigorous proof that Ba6 loses?
Jul 9, 2024
0
#10277
tygxc wrote:
@13501
"tell you the result of the starting position"
Here
(See you've resorted to composing your quotes yourself instead of just snipping them out of context.)
What's Here supposed to tell me? That an engine that can manage only 100% draws from some 5 piece positions (winning or drawing) can only manage 100% draws from the starting 32 piece position with the help of people 1000 ELO weaker? Am I supposed to be surprised, informed or what?
MARattigan wrote:
What's Here supposed to tell me? That an engine that can manage only 100% draws from some 5 piece positions (winning or drawing) can only manage 100% draws from the starting 32 piece position with the help of people 1000 ELO weaker? Am I supposed to be surprised, informed or what?
Oof. Savage ...
And yes, of course ICCF games are all likely to be draws. The competitors are almost certainly all using the same narrow pool of engines to analyze with ... Nobody has an advantage in playing strength.
MaetsNori wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
What's Here supposed to tell me? That an engine that can manage only 100% draws from some 5 piece positions (winning or drawing) can only manage 100% draws from the starting 32 piece position with the help of people 1000 ELO weaker? Am I supposed to be surprised, informed or what?
Oof. Savage ...
And yes, of course ICCF games are all likely to be draws. The competitors are almost certainly all using the same narrow pool of engines to analyze with ... Nobody has an advantage in playing strength.
Thats part of the problem drawing ,winning ,losing cant really solve chess on its own lol t also makes sense that most computers will draw if they are going for only a draw /win tbh in chess sometimes to win you have to take risks that look like it weakens your position even tho it doesn't
so tygxc, wheres the deductive proof from the axioms of chess rules that chess is a draw?
the tempo valuation is a made up estimated metric. deductive proofs have no such metrics.
Let me explain it to you in short words.
No deductive proofs of chess can be made in areas where chess has not been deductively solved.
This is nonsense expressed in short words. Proofs within chess will be made in areas where it has not been deductively solved. For example a bigger tablebase consists of an unimaginable number of proofs.
Long term assessments from any complex positions, including the starting position, haven't been solved. That's what this feeble discussion is about.
True.
Therefore deductive proofs you ask for are impossible and if desired, others more inferential conclusions may be attempted.
This is an invalid reasoning: you have not provided any reason why deductive proofs are impossible, just stated the conclusion. Besides, we know that solving chess is mathematically trival - the algorithm is easily specified but impractical to execute.
They can be checked by evidence.
What on Earth is that meant to mean. 'Evidence' is not a part of a proof. It is a part of inductive reasoning (or the motivation for looking for a proof).
Where, therefore, are the deductive proofs that such inferential conclusions are incorrect? The evidence which may be used to deductively form such proofs doesn't exist?
Looks like you've tripped yourself up, are hoist by your own petard etc. Elroch just claimed that tygxc doesn't "think right for this discussion". Well it would seem that Elroch doesn't think right either, since otherwise he would be fair-minded and point out that you don't think right. You are extremely pretentious and so is Elroch, to imagine that both your ideas should be prioritised when neither of you are very bright or very right.
Both of us are bright enough not to make the mistake of using the phrase "very right". Abstract propositions are either right or wrong. Abstract truth is absolute and boolean.