@12227
"meaning agreed"
++ Per Prof. van den Herik: 'the game-theoretic value of a game is the outcome
when all participants play optimally'
Thus all moves that are neither ? nor ?? by definition are optimal play.
Meanwhile here are 115 games with optimal play by both sides.
Certainty: 1 - 1/116² = 99.993%
@12227
"meaning agreed"
++ Per Prof. van den Herik: 'the game-theoretic value of a game is the outcome
when all participants play optimally'
Thus all moves that are neither ? nor ?? by definition are optimal play.
Meanwhile here are 115 games with optimal play by both sides.
Certainty: 1 - 1/116² = 99.993%
wow i didnt know that 99%=100%
you learn something new every day.
and by the way, put that equation away for probability. it literally uses the assumption that the games are perfect to begin with. it also assumes errors are independent, which is blatantly false.
That took 4 years with a team of grandmasters and computers. One of which was faulty.
@12227
"meaning agreed"
++ Per Prof. van den Herik: 'the game-theoretic value of a game is the outcome
when all participants play optimally'
Thus all moves that are neither ? nor ?? by definition are optimal play.
Another non-sequitur from @tygxc.
The terms DTM optimal move, DTC optimal move, DTM50 optimal move etc. are in accepted use, all describing different kinds of optimality. Most perfect moves are not optimal in any of those senses.
Moreover in basic rules chess, perfect play implies perfect moves, but not conversely.
If White plays Kf8 on every odd move and Kg8 on every even move none of his moves are blunders, but his play is not perfect.
In fact Prof. van den Herik doesn't define optimal play, but his statement is true with many meanings of optimal play. Your statement doesn't follow from that.
Meanwhile here are 115 games with optimal play by both sides.
Certainty: 1 - 1/116² = 99.993%
Certainty: ((0+7+10) (1000-8)/992)-17=0.000% (My formula is no less nonsensical, but the answer is closer.)
@MARattigan, a suitable refinement (to rectify the problem you identify) for the general case of combinatorial games with results that are Win/Draw/Loss is to define an order on positions as follows
Here "best play" is play where both players play according to the order.
As this is self-referential, a little routine work is needed to show that this is well-defined.
i.e. a position is better if the result is better, and if the result is the same a shorter win is better than a longer win and a longer loss is better than a shorter loss.
This does not differentiate between all positions, but those that it fails to differentiate can be considered "equally good".
Of course, this is applied to a set of moves in a position by comparing the positions reached after those moves.
But that's exactly why it's important to agree on the meaning of the words we're using in the argument.
@tygxc talks about "errors" and "blunders" meaning what most people interested in solutions of chess would respectively call half point blunders and full point blunders. An "error" to anyone but @tygxc could mean almost anything.
But at least it's easy enough to understand @tygxc's posts by simply doing the translation I just wrote to standard terms.
What do you mean by "blunder" in the text you posted?
Regarding 'agree' on the meaning of terms - even if we 'make a deal' and 'agree' on the meaning of the terms that doesn't mean other persons would.
I think its clear that blunder refers to a single move that is a mistake but is also in a category of bigger mistakes.
Also - 'half point blunder' and full point blunder' is too binary and too simplified to properly encompass or describe all mistakes and inferior play.
Chess is not a simple game and was not built to be simple.
Which means mistakes in chess aren't simple.
They're not.
---------------------
I think most people know that.
There's a whole spectrum of mistakes and bad plays and bad methods too. (inefficient on the clock for example)
I think it would be better to first 'agree' that mistakes in chess don't classify in a simple way.
But on the other hand to also be aware that the words we have are the tools available.
'Blunder' is a term in chess.
And in chess.com analysis and 'game review' the word 'blunder' does not cover all moves that are not among 'best moves'.
---------------------
Also pointing out that 'best moves' on analysis boards and in computer-checking chess puzzles are usually moves thought by engines to be 'best'.
But engines aren't perfect so they might get that wrong too - as opposed to being programmed to fail to play for a win as opposed to a draw - without the programmer being aware of same in an explicit way.
Why would the programmer not be explicity aware?
Because chess is Not solved. A fact conceded by tygxc on multiple occasions.
He has double conceded to the effect also that it 'can't be solved with today's technology' which refers back to the fact that it is Not solved.
He might not have realized on all those occasions that he was actually making a double concession.
----------------------------------
the forum title contains 'will never be solved' which ever so slightly but significantly diverts from its older cousin which is
'It Is not solved'.
Is not. Implications. Many. With many of those implications invalidating tygxc's claims and other claims 'Occam's Razor' style.
Is Not Solved.
Means that many claims in the forum are mispremised or unpremised.
Renders them into 'circular reasoning'.
A Grim Reaper - mowing down phony claims.
But no need to be Grim though. I'll leave that to the brothers Grimm.
The categories of moves you need to consider when evaluating play (and you can name these what you will)
1. Error (changes the evaluation by half a point)
2. Blunder (changes the evaluation by a full point)
3. Suboptimal move (A move that retains the theoretical outcome or current evaluation, but does not force as few options for opponent as possible. This includes engine or human play that aims for a draw.)
4. Optimal move (retains current evaluation and leaves as few moves as possible for opponent that retain current evaluation.
What you can take away from this is, even if engine play is free from errors and blunders against their current opponents, unless they're facing explicitly optimal moves, you cannot conclude they're unbeatable.
Edit. And evaluation meaning objective outcome in this post
"unless they're facing explicitly optimal moves,"
which pertains back to the fact that chess is Not Solved -
which means 'optimal moves' so much of the time is just a concept.
If somebody can be check-mated on move and there's only one move to do it - then that's an optimal move.
But most of the time such a move isn't available - nor a 'mate in x moves' sequence.
In tactics puzzles - there's usually a move or moves available that are clearly 'optimal'.
But such positions are a small fraction of all positions.
In other words - Chess is Not Solved. The Reaper.
That is the Rome and current capital city that 'all roads' lead back to.
'all roads' is figurative but not 'literal' even figuratively.
---------------------
regarding classifying blunders versus errors versus 'suboptimal play' (with the default being that that's somewhat vague because 'optimal play' usually isn't established (the Reaper again) ....
if a classification system is devised that's designed to be comprehensive - that doesn't mean that system is practical.
For example - a computer makes plays that are 'punishable' ...
but deeply so. Not easy to detect and not easy to refute ...
then failure to punish that play is itself a kind of 'error'.
One can try to semanticize and say 'No! Errors are errors and they're all 'errors'!'
Only to serve the words and semantics - not the practicalities.
I think you'd find that programmers have to serve practicalities not semantics.
'Words and concepts' versus 'math and computer math and logic and logic math'.
The two groups of things constantly collide in this subject of Chess Not Solved.
But that Collission pertains to many other things too. Even in law.
-----------------------
@Elroch it is a mistake to think that because a classification of errors seems to be 'complete' that it is therefore 'adequate'.
That doesn't follow.
Respectfully - I think you've got this 'wrong'.
--------------------------
And the result is Advantage to tygxc.
He'll exploit other people's terms too.
Like 'game-theoretic value'.
Another booby-trap semantic in a huge minefield of such booby-traps.
Idea: keep it generic. 'game-theoretic value' is brand-name.
Its like a science person using the word 'believe' in a roomful of science deniers.
Causing them to yell 'enemy on periscope. battle stations!'
@Elroch it is a mistake to think that because a classification of errors seems to be 'complete' that it is therefore 'adequate'.
That doesn't follow.
Respectfully - I think you've got this 'wrong'.
With all due respect, it is your incomplete understanding that is the problem!
@MARattigan pointed out the practically important fact that playing game theoretically optimal moves in basic chess does not ensure that you achieve the optimum result. The reason for this is that in basic chess there exist infinite games where the theoretical results stays as a win, but the player with the advantage never wins. He exhibited a simple example of this.
In essence, the problem occurs because the quality criterion for positions does not take into account how many moves it takes to win a position.
I pointed out that there is a strictly stronger partial order on positions (and thus on moves in a position) that values the distance to a result with optimal play (in the stronger sense of trying to win fast and trying to lose slowly), and that using this criterion for comparing moves means that playing optimal moves reaches the optimal result when it is a win (in a drawn position, there is no need. Without rules like 3-fold repetition or a 50 move rule, most draws have to be by agreement, since forcing a stalemate is not usually possible).
I also noted that where there are rules that make it possible, optimality can be further extended to drawing positions - the most obvious refinement is force a drawing rule trigger in as few moves as possible.
this is a shadow ban test
will someone please confirm this is read
t y
More like a sanity test, really.
@Elroch it is a mistake to think that because a classification of errors seems to be 'complete' that it is therefore 'adequate'.
That doesn't follow.
Respectfully - I think you've got this 'wrong'.
With all due respect, it is your incomplete understanding that is the problem!
@MARattigan pointed out the practically important fact that playing game theoretically optimal moves in basic chess does not ensure that you achieve the optimum result. The reason for this is that in basic chess there exist infinite games where the theoretical results stays as a win, but the player with the advantage never wins. He exhibited a simple example of this.
In essence, the problem occurs because the quality criterion for positions does not take into account how many moves it takes to win a position.
I pointed out that there is a strictly stronger partial order on positions (and thus on moves in a position) that values the distance to a result with optimal play (in the stronger sense of trying to win fast and trying to lose slowly), and that using this criterion for comparing moves means that playing optimal moves reaches the optimal result when it is a win (in a drawn position, there is no need. Without rules like 3-fold repetition or a 50 move rule, most draws have to be by agreement, since forcing a stalemate is not usually possible).
I also noted that where there are rules that make it possible, optimality can be further extended to drawing positions - the most obvious refinement is force a drawing rule trigger in as few moves as possible.
Elroch your post there shows that the point went right by you.
Attempts to classify errors can fail in at least two ways - one is from a programming standpoint and all the issues and vicissitudes of same.
Including 'playing for a win' as opposed to 'playing for a draw'.
Even a linear determination of 'advantage' is suspect.
---------------------------------------
But the other failure is in discussion including discussion with persons like tygxc.
Example: Martin - that's MarAttigan trying to tell tygxc he 'Can't' do something. That's 'advantage to tygxc.'
--------------------------------------------
He'll look at your post and think 'Yes! Victory again! Elroch's post is 'gobbledygook' !!'
Elroch your 'methods' are effective with people like Optimissed ... but with tygxc you're dealing with something different. A disinformationer.
It isn't about me.
You trying to make it as about me is more proof you don't get it.
But - and on the other hand - you're doing fine.
------------------------------------
tygxc will continue with 'nodes per second' and 'square root of number of possible positions' and '114 draws proves'. All invalid positions.
Could there be an analogy to describe what he's doing?
A park chess player sits reading. With board and pieces and clock set up in front of him.
He's got white. Has already moved 1) g4.
Another player comes up.
'Can I get a game? Why have you moved already? You're supposed to let black start your clock first.'
Reply: 'Lets play. 5 minutes each. There I've put the pawn back. Sit down.'
New player sits down. 'And why 1) g4 ?? Isn't that the worst move?'
Reply: 'Probably. But I play it and win with it. And also with 1) Na3 and other bad first moves.'
------------------------------------------------
they play. white wins and continues to win all games with other bad first moves with white or black.
New player: 'I don't get it. Okay you won with bad moves. Why don't you play better first moves?'
Reply: 'You're right. You don't get it. Lets try a different idea. I'll take off my b-knight every game before starting. Lets see what happens.'
Result: Hero continues to win every game even playing a knight down.
Other players come and the same thing happens.
They complain. They ruminate. They commiserate.
Hero: 'You guys don't get it about tactics.'
---------------------------------------
tygxc is 'Hero'.
His message to all is that he can keep repeating the same invalid claims to all comers and nobody will beat him.
In park chess - 'play the winner' means you have to get whoever's up off his seat by beating him if you want to play somebody else. Beat not draw.
Nobody is going to 'get tygxc up off his seat'.
The analogy holds up remarkably well.
this is a shadow ban test
will someone please confirm this is read
t y
I don't think they do that here. That's more of a Lichess thing ...
d4 d5 e4
The Blackmar-Diemer.
White does OK.
https://www.365chess.com/opening.php?m=6&n=300&ms=d4.d5.e4.dxe4.Nc3&ns=7.8.75.132.300#search_block_opening_explorerLow percentage of draws.
Pertains to forum subject?
Yes.
At the same site I compared d4 d5 c4.
Doesn't win as much for white as the Blackmar.
40% compared with 42% winning for Blackmar Diemer with white.
Point: dogma about trying to 'arbitrate' one opening move as better than another.
'Solved' ... g4 e5 f3 Qh4 checkmate.
The 'bad news'. White didn't have to play f3 which 'falls on his sword'.
It's quite remarkable the amount of pretentious drivel someone can write about such an unimportant subject.
yo guys completely unrelated to the topic i beat an irl person with over 500 elo more than me
tygxc posts #2, #6, #10
A member - a good member - told tygxc that he tygxc 'can't' do something.
Which is what tygxc likes to hear.
Then tygxc will 'demonstrate' that he's going to do exactly what he 'can't' do.
Year in year out.
As to how the various members 'go at tygxc' I'm not going to talk about that the way the O-person does.
-------------------------
Instead - I'll put it this way:
When countering disinformation on the net one can 'micro-manage' one's interference with that disinfo person ... or instead 'look at the bigger picture' and proceed that way ... or concentrate on all points in between.
Or do all three.
----------------------------
If there's inattention to any of the three - then advantage to the disinformer.
tygxc knows about disinformation tactics.
He uses those tactics constantly.
For others to counter those tactics (and to counter the tactics of climate science deniers too) then something well beyond just 'being right' is in order.
tygxc knows he's wrong.
That's the point.
He's 'serving notice' like this 'Yes spreading disinformation. Now what are you going to do about it?'
-----------------
Reminds me of a scene in a movie where Clint Eastwood boxing coach is telling young Hilary fighter between rounds ... (Hilary fighter is losing) about her opponent ...
'She's a better fighter than you. Now what are you going to do about it??'
Hilary comes out swinging and puts her opponent down.
-----------------------------------------
But that isn't available here.
There's no 'knockout'.
So perhaps the best is to just keep refuting tygxc's disinformation.
Year in year out.
------------------------
Result: things come out about the nature of chess.
For example the business of 'playing for a win' versus 'playing for a draw'.
In lower levels of the game it usually becomes obvious at some point which one a player must be doing. In other words not how to make such decisions but when. Its usually obvious. Although it may be unexpected when it happens - that its time.
But in GM play but moreso with supercomputers playing against each other and the programming of such computers ... that's a whole different ball game.
@12271
The definitions are not mine, but those of GM Hübner.
'I have attached question marks to the moves which change a winning position into a drawn game, or a drawn position into a losing one, according to my judgment; a move which changes a winning game into a losing one deserves two question marks.'
Game-theoretically there are only good moves, errors (?), or blunders (??).
No doubt Hübner included that text because he was aware that he was using the terms in non conventional senses in his tract. He doesn't appear to be advocating a general adoption of the terms.
There can be little confusion about the terms "half point blunder" and "full point blunder" and, if those terms are adopted, then little confusion about the term "blunder". An error could be anything.
The use of the term "perfect" to mean a move which is not a blunder is not intuitive but that applies to a lot of jargon. You have to just use it in discussion with the meaning agreed. It's less likely to be confusing than "good" which could mean very many things,