This topic degraded to some guerilla fights.
and ur just realizing that now ?
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
thats what im thinking too. not sure abt black to win. but black for the edge ?
MaFi_Ricja wrote:
Idk. But if one day chess has been solved and white or black get a dominant sequence of moves that will dominate every move, fide will just ban the line and we will back to the normal chess
That already exists. Stockfish can provide you a line that you can follow against any player in the world and win. Carlsen or Nakamura, doesn't matter. Why would it be any different if the line is a forced win when nobody will respond with the best play anyway. Do it before fide figures it out.
Aug 7, 2024
0
#11805
tygxc why do you continue to ignore the fact that iccf games have literally nothing to do with solving chess?
you have no proof of any of their games having any property beyond them drawing against eachother. anyone can draw against eachother, it proves nothing.
I also love how you cant even defend the tangent despite it being fundamentally off topic and fallacious.
just because someone goes for a novel line at the start doesnt mean they arent playing it safe.
Aug 7, 2024
0
#11806
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
thats what im thinking too. not sure abt black to win. but black for the edge.
theres no proof against it, despite tygxc's coping.
Aug 7, 2024
0
#11807
MaetsNori wrote:
tygxc wrote:
"players are intentionally seeking draws" ++ No, they avoid losing and try to win if possible.
The player in question drew, as White, in 15 moves, 20 moves, and in 22 moves.
I consider this evidence that the player was not trying to win these games - he was intentionally aiming to draw them.
He has top engines at his disposal - he would certainly be able to see that a draw was coming, soon out of the opening, based on the moves he chose. If he were actively trying to win, and were not content with drawing, then he would have sought deeper, longer-lasting complications, instead.
The fact that he didn't suggests that he was content with securing quick draws.
This is no mystery - players do it all the time in tournaments. You aim for draws in games in which you perceive draws are beneficial for you. You save your winning attempts for key games in which your chances may be highest.
But this approach isn't a reliable method for discerning the objective truth about chess (if that's what we're truly after). It skews the data toward draws, because draws are desirable outcomes due to the safety they provide (as you said yourself, "they do not want to lose").
tygxc trying to assert something as fact because he says so.
That hasn't been addressed much here.
Not specifically.
tygxc trying for a phony authority including with false information from him.
Connects to Martin's joke about tygxc having a red telephone.
Its like a climate science denier trying to assert false information that the oceans are getting shallower instead of the actual reality of ocean water levels increasing with such deniers 'premise' being that he or she or their Guru says so.
@12195
6 Nec3 has been tried before. 6 c4 is a novelty aiming to improve on it.
In your line black should play 9...b5:
"the best attempt at winning" ++ He should probably play 2 Nf3 or 2 c3. That draws too.
"he was apparently content with a draw" ++ I disagree, if he wanted to draw, then he could have followed the above game. With his novelty 6 c4 he aimed to win, but the intended 13 fxe5 on deeper analysis turned out not as favorable as he thought, so he drew with 13 Bf1.
"Similar cases could be made for other games" ++ Such as?
"these draws, while of high quality, are not conclusive (or even reliable) evidence" ++ They are.
"Some of the competitors are clearly not pushing chess to its limits"
++ They are. Even so, there are 17 competitors. Which ones are not pushing?
"they appear to be bailing out with safe draws"
++ They do not play Catalan, Najdorf, French for safety or to draw.
They try to win, but they cannot because Chess is a draw if played prefectly.
They do not play novelties to draw as in predecessor games, but to try to win.
Aug 7, 2024
0
#11809
Its not established that a perfect game of chess has ever been played.
Reason - chess is not solved.
Nor has it ever been established that a perfect game would end in a draw.
Nobody knows.
That's something that many don't want to accept.
Some things will never be known.
Like whether the universe is finite or infinite.
@12210
"a perfect game of chess" ++ Here are 114 perfect games.
"chess is not solved" ++ It is being weakly solved.
"a perfect game would end in a draw" ++ It does, see 114 examples.
"Nobody knows." ++ All good players know.
"whether the universe is finite or infinite"
++ Finite, radius 13.772 ± 0.059 billion light years as measured by WMAP
Aug 7, 2024
0
#11811
tygxc wrote:
@12210
"a perfect game of chess" ++ Here are 114 perfect games.
no proof of perfection, plus youve already admitted you have no way of telling whether an individual game is perfect. you contradict yourself.
"chess is not solved" ++ It is being weakly solved.
it isnt. weak solutions involve proof. none of what tygxc describes involves proof."a perfect game would end in a draw" ++ It does, see 114 examples. Again, no proof of such.
"Nobody knows." ++ All good players know.
actually, nobody knows, and you can check basic wikipedia or any entry on solving chess. you just dont understand mathematical certainty.
https://thevarsity.ca/2023/03/12/how-do-we-solve-chess/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solving_chess
https://chess-teacher.com/is-the-chess-game-solved/
http://wordpress.mrreid.org/2012/11/08/solved-games/
by definition we dont "know" anything until we have a mathematically rigorous solution.
"whether the universe is finite or infinite"
++ Finite, radius 13.772 ± 0.059 billion light years as measured by WMAP
Wow tygxc, i didnt know you loved making a fool of yourself in physics too! We actually dont know if the universe is finite. your article is only able to measure the directly observable universe. And again, your standard of proof continues to be "whatever I believe = certain fact"
Please stop making a fool of yourself.
Aug 7, 2024
0
#11812
what next tygxc, are you going to claim that the earth is flat, and that all scientists know it?
Aug 8, 2024
0
#11813
tygxc wrote:
@12210
"a perfect game of chess" ++ Here are 114 perfect games.
"chess is not solved" ++ It is being weakly solved.
"a perfect game would end in a draw" ++ It does, see 114 examples.
"Nobody knows." ++ All good players know.
"whether the universe is finite or infinite"
++ Finite, radius 13.772 ± 0.059 billion light years as measured by WMAP
So tygxc is wrong about the universe too.
He's giving Big Bang dimensions.
Nobody has ever proven there's not other Big Bangs out there or that there is and probably nobody ever will.
Because you'd have to prove that you would see them from inside this one.
tygxc doesn't understand about unknowns in math and science - or pretends not to.
He wants something to be true because he or his guru says so.
But that's not so either.
Never will be.
Is this 'being nasty to tygxc'?
No. He's proud of making his sweeping generalizations - almost all of them wrong. And getting reaction.
And I haven't namecalled him nor have I accused him of trolling.
Nor lying. 'pretending' seems to be a 'fun and games' he wants to play.
Its what he wants to do. And does.
Is there even one thing he's been right about yet?
Only that chess can't be solved with current technology.
That might be the only one.
Aug 8, 2024
0
#11814
The phantom down arrow clicker has been working overtime for the last few pages, but, curiously, several of the posts show -2. We seem to have acquired another.
Aug 8, 2024
0
#11815
a : Even if the game of chess was solved by a super super calculator that calculated all the possible moves from the starting position to the end knowing by memory, it would not change much for humans because their capacities are too limited in terms of memory and even position calculation for it to be really relevant to them.
If we say that the chess equation is a draw this doesn't eliminate the fact that as humans we rarely manage to play a perfect game without errors and in the end there won't only be draws.
b : For the game of chess to be solved we have to create this super super calculator but since nowadays the strong bots are already stronger than humans, in the end there is not much point in creating this super super calculator and so in the end the game of chess will not be solved.
@12216
a : "all the possible moves from the starting position" ++ It is not necessary to calculate all possible moves: only 1 black response to all reasonable white moves is enough.
"their capacities are too limited in terms of memory" ++ It is not necessary to remember all moves, it is enough to remember some true rules derived from the solution.
"as humans we rarely manage to play a perfect game without errors"
++ In the ICCF World Championship Finals there are now 114 draws out of 114 games.
"b : For the game of chess to be solved we have to create this super super calculator"
++ The 17 ICCF World Championship Finalists are now weakly solving chess with their 17*2 = 34 servers of each 90 million positions/s at average 5 days/move.
whether the universe is finite or infinite
infinity is a magnitude right ?...notta scalar ?
tygxc wrote:
++ Such as?
... They try to win, but they cannot because Chess is a draw if played prefectly.
Searching through more ICCF WC games for the sake of this debate is a rabbit hole that I don't really have time to plunge into. I only glanced at the one because you posted it. I still have my own chess to work on, as well as non-chess-related responsibilities, too ...
Though, the "chess is a draw" argument isn't a contentious point, for me. One of the first chess books I read, as a beginner many moons ago, declared that chess is likely a draw from move one. It was a statement that I accepted as logical and surely true (otherwise, what would be the point of the game? Both players should start on equal footing, otherwise the game wouldn't be fair ...).
My contention is with using ICCF games as the measuring stick. I consider this dubious, especially when such games are steered by fallible humans, who are relying on engines which, history has shown, will be considered weak and inaccurate in a few years' time. These are two negatives that should, ideally, be scrubbed from the equation.
We can't remove engines from the equation, unfortunately, as they are the strongest chess entities we have to measure by. But we *can* remove the humans from the equation.
This is why I suggested tournaments between top engines, in which their "contempt-for-draw" parameters have been set to maximum. This would imply that the engines would try everything they could to avoid drawing - thus removing the issue I've raised about human competitors possibly seeking safe draws due to tournament strategy.
Of course, this would lead to many losses.
Over time, though, as engines continue to march toward theoretical perfection, the number of draws would inevitably rise, as well. If, eventually, all the games are drawn - even with the engines trying everything they can to avoid draws - this, then, would be far more compelling evidence than any human-piloted games ...
i learned chess by playing it backwards. it started like this:
what if we looked at reversing the algorithms ?...i know i know ez2say...
MaetsNori wrote:
Searching through more ICCF WC games for the sake of this debate is a rabbit hole that I don't really have time to plunge into. I only glanced at the one because you posted it. I still have my own chess to work on, as well as non-chess-related responsibilities, too ...
Though, the "chess is a draw" argument isn't a contentious point, for me. One of the first chess books I read, as a beginner many moons ago, declared that chess is likely a draw from move one. It was a statement that I accepted as logical and surely true (otherwise, what would be the point of the game? Both players should start on equal footing, otherwise the game wouldn't be fair ...).
My contention is with using ICCF games as the measuring stick. I consider this dubious, especially when such games are steered by fallible humans, who are relying on engines which, history has shown, will be considered weak and inaccurate in a few years' time. These are two negatives that should, ideally, be scrubbed from the equation.
We can't remove engines from the equation, unfortunately, as they are the strongest chess entities we have to measure by. But we *can* remove the humans from the equation.
This is why I suggested tournaments between top engines, in which their "contempt-for-draw" parameters have been set to maximum. This would imply that the engines would try everything they could to avoid drawing - thus removing the issue I've raised about human competitors possibly seeking safe draws due to tournament strategy.
Of course, this would lead to many losses.
Over time, though, as engines continue to march toward theoretical perfection, the number of draws would inevitably rise, as well. If, eventually, all the games are drawn - even with the engines trying everything they can to avoid draws - this, then, would be far more compelling evidence than any human-piloted games ...
Chess is not some game designed by Milton Bradley or Hasbro...chess evolved, and if it is "fair" that is a matter of evolution, not intent. Obviously "fair" seeming games are more popular in the long term versus games with obvious advantages for one side. That does not mean that chess is a forced draw with best play. Nobody knows if it is a forced draw, and proving whether it is or not is not going to happen in time to have any effect on this thread...
i have a question...is it better to act 1st or 2nd ? only cuz they say in lotsa games its better to act 2nd cuz one has more information. iows does black have the slight edge ?...or white here ?