Username_Change wrote:
2 years and 12,000 comments later ...
Its no closer to being solved.
Because there's no 'path' yet.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Aug 9, 2024
0
#11844
MaetsNori wrote:
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 ...
Hi MaetsNori !
'likely a draw from move 1'
kind of a vague statement. (not about you MN)
Most games don't end in draws.
Except between equally programmed computers poorly programmed to play for a win against each other.
-------------------------
'likely a draw with optimal play on both sides' ...
no such thing has ever been established to have happened in any game.
Ever.
Why not?
Because chess has not been solved. Not from any first move either.
Which tygxc has already conceded to more than once.
He can wriggle and writhe and bob and weave but he already tapped out on that one years ago.
So now - its just shadowboxing from our Guy.
Shadowboxing from tyg and signed grafitti from our three climate science deniers in the forum about such denial.
Aug 9, 2024
0
#11845
playerafar wrote:
MaetsNori wrote:
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 ...
Hi MaetsNori !
'likely a draw from move 1'
kind of a vague statement. (not about you MN)
Most games don't end in draws.
Except between equally programmed computers poorly programmed to play for a win against each other.
-------------------------
'likely a draw with optimal play on both sides' ...
no such thing has ever been established to have happened in any game.
Ever.
Why not?
Because chess has not been solved. Not from any first move either.
Which tygxc has already conceded to more than once.
He can wriggle and writhe and bob and weave but he already tapped out on that one years ago.
So now - its just shadowboxing from our Guy.
Shadowboxing from tyg and signed grafitti from our three climate science deniers in the forum about such denial.
u know there is always a draw when none make mistakes...that's a fact and no one can change that...however now fide is slowly launching chess960 sinec everyone learn all the moves of the standard game, CHESS960 will be a wall that would be difficult to break....SUPRISINGLY, and also maybe you guys the variant chess960 played at the world level
@12241
"2 years and 12,000 comments later"
++ The ongoing ICCF World Championship Finals started on November 20, 2022.
Now they are at 114 draws out of 114 games.
Aug 9, 2024
0
#11847
tygxc wrote:
@12241
"2 years and 12,000 comments later"
++ The ongoing ICCF World Championship Finals started on November 20, 2022.
Now they are at 114 draws out of 114 games.
wanna justify why that's relevant? games by subjective engines have literally nothing to do with mathematical solutions
@12221
"I only glanced at the one"
++ Here is how it could have led to a 7-men endgame draw if white had chosen the sharp 13 fxe5 instead of taking the repetition 13 Bf1:
Or a later 3-fold repetition:
Aug 9, 2024
0
#11850
tygxc wrote:
@12221
"I only glanced at the one"
++ Here is how it could have led to a 7-men endgame draw if white had chosen the sharp 13 fxe5 instead of taking the repetition 13 Bf1:
Or a later 3-fold repetition:
wow a single line, what about the other trillion variations?
basic math proof eludes you.
again, why are you going off on the iccf tangent that has nothing to do with solving chess?
Aug 9, 2024
0
#11851
This game proves chess is a draw. I am 99.99999% sure the play is perfect (there's a little doubt about the draw offer, and a smaller amount about its acceptance).
[Warning: ironic]
Aug 9, 2024
0
#11852
"u know there is always a draw when none make mistakes...that's a fact and no one can change that."
Its not a fact and is wrong in two ways.
First its never been proved.
Second - you can't know there's 'no mistakes'.
For a specific reason - chess hasn't been solved.
Which tygxc already conceded to more than once.
So you can't know nobody made any mistakes.
Mistakes can be deep.
---------------------------
To understand that better consider a game between two weak players but nobody 'blundered'.
And also - the game was a draw.
When either of those players is playing a much stronger player - they can still not 'blunder' but the stronger player tears them to pieces.
Anybody who's played a lot of chess knows that's how that works.
Aug 9, 2024
0
#11853
Wiith the current tech, a 32-piece tablebase is nothing but a dream. That's what "solving" is: knowing every possible outcome. Though, can we say "never"...? As trite as it may sound, who knows what the future will bring
playerafar wrote:
"u know there is always a draw when none make mistakes...that's a fact and no one can change that."
Its not a fact and is wrong in two ways.
First its never been proved.
Second - you can't know there's 'no mistakes'.
For a specific reason - chess hasn't been solved.
Which tygxc already conceded to more than once.
So you can't know nobody made any mistakes.
Mistakes can be deep.
---------------------------
To understand that better consider a game between two weak players but nobody 'blundered'.
And also - the game was a draw.
When either of those players is playing a much stronger player - they can still not 'blunder' but the stronger player tears them to pieces.
Anybody who's played a lot of chess knows that's how that works.
But that isn't how it works. Games between evenly matched weak players mostly end in wins.
DiogenesDue wrote:
Chess is not some game designed by Milton Bradley or Hasbro...
Hah! Touché ...
Aug 9, 2024
0
#11856
playerafar wrote:
...
To understand that better consider a game between two weak players but nobody 'blundered'.
And also - the game was a draw.
When either of those players is playing a much stronger player - they can still not 'blunder' but the stronger player tears them to pieces.
...
You can't have it both ways. A blunder is an action that adversely changes the theoretical outcome for the player taking it.
If neither player blunders in a drawn game then that version of chess is a draw.
In that case nobody, not even a tablebase, could win a chess game of the same version against a player unless that player blunders.
People don't want infinity to exist.
cuz theyre scared a it.
what it tells us about its future.
theres no such thing as the future. it doesnt exist. and so ppl lie about it. ask any bohemienne.
This is a game not a math problem.
then whys the best player in the world a silicon math slave ?...but u make a good indirect thingy. theres enuf 'art' in chess to throw e/t off. o/w the best players on the world would be genius math ppl right ?...which theyre not even close to that.
i just wonder if theres ENUF art in chess where it becomes too prejudice to solve...hmmm.
Aug 9, 2024
0
#11859
That's @tygxc logic. Noughts and crosses is two humans playing but it's been solved many times.
Aug 9, 2024
0
#11860
7zx wrote:
playerafar wrote:
"u know there is always a draw when none make mistakes...that's a fact and no one can change that."
Its not a fact and is wrong in two ways.
First its never been proved.
Second - you can't know there's 'no mistakes'.
For a specific reason - chess hasn't been solved.
Which tygxc already conceded to more than once.
So you can't know nobody made any mistakes.
Mistakes can be deep.
---------------------------
To understand that better consider a game between two weak players but nobody 'blundered'.
And also - the game was a draw.
When either of those players is playing a much stronger player - they can still not 'blunder' but the stronger player tears them to pieces.
Anybody who's played a lot of chess knows that's how that works.
But that isn't how it works. Games between evenly matched weak players mostly end in wins.
Yes it is. I didn't say such games don't end in wins too.
You're talking about something else. Not addressing what I'm saying.
'If nobody makes a mistake the game ends in a draw.'
There's no evidence there's ever been such a game. Ever.
Plus two weak players can make no blunders and the game ends in a draw because their weak play was not punished by a much stronger player.
If you don't know that's how that works then you haven't played much chess or haven't been learning or are just refusing to consider it.
Which is fine.
But you won't be able to compete with tygxc on 'disconnecting'.
people will notice that tygxc hasnt ever addressed any of the many refutations.
tygxc likes to say things that he knows are either false or unestablished and say them as if he is the authority and they are true because he says so.
He'll then pretend he hasn't been refuted over and over.
He'll find new variations on that. How do I know?
Because that's what he does.
----------------------------------
As for me - I say humanity 'doesn't know' various things.
Not because I say so - but because humanity doesn't know.
'Nature abhors a vaccuum' That's right.
When people encounter unknowns its natural to want an explanation or information or to render the unknowns into knowns.
Happens constantly.
Its related to cognitive dissonance.
Accepting that something is unknown versus substituting whatever for the unknown.
'substitution' usually wins in such conflicts of cognitions.
What's often also missed is that one could even entertain both - and leave them in conflict. But so often that 'rubs the psyche the wrong way'.
Especially with our Guy. tygxc.
--------------------------
Analogy in chess:
d4 d5 c4 ...
black can take or Decline taking with c6 or e6.
But if black declines then white doesn't have to take at d5. Either.
He can leave it like that instead of playing exchange variations.
Just leave the two 'cognition pawns' in conflict.
And that's often what happens. For a while.