If we knew the game states of all positions then we'd only have three move categories.
True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides
Sort:
Aug 17, 2019
0
#2363
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
If we knew the game states of all positions then we'd only have three move categories.
We can't list the entire array but we do know the game stats of all positions and can derive information about them with what we already have.
Ermm, we don't even have all positions.
Aug 17, 2019
0
#2364
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
If we knew the game states of all positions then we'd only have three move categories.
We can't list the entire array but we do know the game stats of all positions and can derive information about them with what we already have.
Ermm, we don't even have all positions.
And even if we did we wouldn't be able to store them, but we know how many positions there are and we can derive information about the whole array. It's probably a draw but if it's not black wins.
We have approximations but we don't know the exact numbers and no, Shannon's Number is a very crude and conservative estimation. Also, the bolded part is unsubstatiated.
Aug 17, 2019
0
#2365
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
If we knew the game states of all positions then we'd only have three move categories.
We can't list the entire array but we do know the game stats of all positions and can derive information about them with what we already have.
Ermm, we don't even have all positions.
And even if we did we wouldn't be able to store them, but we know how many positions there are and we can derive information about the whole array. It's probably a draw but if it's not black wins.
We have approximations but we don't know the exact numbers and no, Shannon's Number is a very crude and conservative estimation. Also, the bolded part is unsubstaciated.
I'm not referring to Shannon's number and it is certainly substantiated but not yet published. You're in for a treat soon.
I know you were not, I mentioned it since it is the most commonly cited number, regardless, how do you know it is substantiated but not published?
Aug 17, 2019
0
#2366
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
If we knew the game states of all positions then we'd only have three move categories.
We can't list the entire array but we do know the game stats of all positions and can derive information about them with what we already have.
Ermm, we don't even have all positions.
And even if we did we wouldn't be able to store them, but we know how many positions there are and we can derive information about the whole array. It's probably a draw but if it's not black wins.
We have approximations but we don't know the exact numbers and no, Shannon's Number is a very crude and conservative estimation. Also, the bolded part is unsubstaciated.
I'm not referring to Shannon's number and it is certainly substantiated but not yet published. You're in for a treat soon.
I know you were not, I mentioned it since it is the most commonly cited number, regardless, how do you know it is substantiated but not published?
That's a secret!
LOL well I can't trust that and nor should anyone.
Aug 17, 2019
0
#2367
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
If we knew the game states of all positions then we'd only have three move categories.
We can't list the entire array but we do know the game stats of all positions and can derive information about them with what we already have.
Ermm, we don't even have all positions.
And even if we did we wouldn't be able to store them, but we know how many positions there are and we can derive information about the whole array. It's probably a draw but if it's not black wins.
We have approximations but we don't know the exact numbers and no, Shannon's Number is a very crude and conservative estimation. Also, the bolded part is unsubstaciated.
I'm not referring to Shannon's number and it is certainly substantiated but not yet published. You're in for a treat soon.
I know you were not, I mentioned it since it is the most commonly cited number, regardless, how do you know it is substantiated but not published?
That's a secret!
LOL well I can't trust that and nor should anyone.
Sounds like a personal problem. Good luck with that buddy.
LOL, if I were to cite that in an essay the teacher would put a 0 on me.
Source: StickyFingersRequiem said so but it's a secret.
Aug 17, 2019
0
#2368
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
If we knew the game states of all positions then we'd only have three move categories.
We can't list the entire array but we do know the game stats of all positions and can derive information about them with what we already have.
Ermm, we don't even have all positions.
And even if we did we wouldn't be able to store them, but we know how many positions there are and we can derive information about the whole array. It's probably a draw but if it's not black wins.
We have approximations but we don't know the exact numbers and no, Shannon's Number is a very crude and conservative estimation. Also, the bolded part is unsubstaciated.
I'm not referring to Shannon's number and it is certainly substantiated but not yet published. You're in for a treat soon.
I know you were not, I mentioned it since it is the most commonly cited number, regardless, how do you know it is substantiated but not published?
That's a secret!
LOL well I can't trust that and nor should anyone.
Sounds like a personal problem. Good luck with that buddy.
LOL, if I were to cite that in an essay the teacher would put a 0 on me.
Source: StickyFingersRequiem said so but it's a secret.
Oh, I didn't realize you were a youngster.
I should take the time to elaborate that you don't have to trust anything but to say that nobody else should either is more than a bit above your station.
I am a stranger to you, there is no reason for you to believe me and there is little point in getting too hung up with semantics, correct me if i'm wrong, but it's not important.
Everything I said was totally substantiated, you just don't know why. If you want to learn, wait for the things I talked about here to be published or become a statistician and math it out yourself.
Or you know, substatiate it yourself, the burden of proof is on you, saying a mysterious publication is coming is of not use to anyone.
Aug 17, 2019
0
#2370
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
If anyone should "math it out" it should be you.
I won't tell you who "mathed it out" but announcing something exciting is far from useless. You're just being hostile. Another reader who didn't want to get involved with this drama or who doesn't have my patience is looking forward to that.
I'm asking for evidence, you are simply not providing it and still cling to your claim-
Aug 17, 2019
0
#2371
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
If anyone should "math it out" it should be you.
I won't tell you who "mathed it out" but announcing something exciting is far from useless. You're just being hostile. Another reader who didn't want to get involved with this drama or who doesn't have my patience is looking forward to that.
I'm asking for evidence, you are simply not providing it and still cling to your claim-
Clinging doesn't apply anymore than burden of proof as you tried to appeal to and blame applied. This isn't an argument, your satisfaction isn't that important. I made an announcement and told everyone about something really cool, the rest is me just helping you to figure everything else out.
Yes, it is an argument, you made claim X, the responsability is on you to show it's true not on me to disprove it.
Have you provided evidence? No.
Anything else?
Aug 17, 2019
0
#2372
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
If anyone should "math it out" it should be you.
I won't tell you who "mathed it out" but announcing something exciting is far from useless. You're just being hostile. Another reader who didn't want to get involved with this drama or who doesn't have my patience is looking forward to that.
I'm asking for evidence, you are simply not providing it and still cling to your claim-
Clinging doesn't apply anymore than burden of proof as you tried to appeal to and blame applied. This isn't an argument, your satisfaction isn't that important. I made an announcement and told everyone about something really cool, the rest is me just helping you to figure everything else out.
Yes, it is an argument, you made claim X, the responsability is on you to show it's true not on me to disprove it.
Have you provided evidence? No.
Anything else?
You're not being honest.
The claim is that this was already substantiated and it will be released in a publication of some form. That means you need only wait and see.
And that claim is unsubstantiated as well...
Aug 17, 2019
0
#2373
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
If anyone should "math it out" it should be you.
I won't tell you who "mathed it out" but announcing something exciting is far from useless. You're just being hostile. Another reader who didn't want to get involved with this drama or who doesn't have my patience is looking forward to that.
I'm asking for evidence, you are simply not providing it and still cling to your claim-
Clinging doesn't apply anymore than burden of proof as you tried to appeal to and blame applied. This isn't an argument, your satisfaction isn't that important. I made an announcement and told everyone about something really cool, the rest is me just helping you to figure everything else out.
Yes, it is an argument, you made claim X, the responsability is on you to show it's true not on me to disprove it.
Have you provided evidence? No.
Anything else?
You're not being honest.
The claim is that this was already substantiated and it will be released in a publication of some form. That means you need only wait and see.
And that claim is unsubstantiated as well...
Then it will be substantiated when the publication is released. Everyone involved already knows and then all that's left is for randoms like you to get it when it's fed to you.
What's the problem?
The problem is that you don't provide evidence for anything you say, anybody can claim that X is true because Y publication is coming. Even if you were right in your claim and the publication is on its way, the logic would remain fallacious.
Aug 17, 2019
0
#2374
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
If anyone should "math it out" it should be you.
I won't tell you who "mathed it out" but announcing something exciting is far from useless. You're just being hostile. Another reader who didn't want to get involved with this drama or who doesn't have my patience is looking forward to that.
I'm asking for evidence, you are simply not providing it and still cling to your claim-
Clinging doesn't apply anymore than burden of proof as you tried to appeal to and blame applied. This isn't an argument, your satisfaction isn't that important. I made an announcement and told everyone about something really cool, the rest is me just helping you to figure everything else out.
Yes, it is an argument, you made claim X, the responsability is on you to show it's true not on me to disprove it.
Have you provided evidence? No.
Anything else?
You're not being honest.
The claim is that this was already substantiated and it will be released in a publication of some form. That means you need only wait and see.
And that claim is unsubstantiated as well...
Then it will be substantiated when the publication is released. Everyone involved already knows and then all that's left is for randoms like you to get it when it's fed to you.
What's the problem?
The problem is that you don't provide evidence for anything you say, anybody can claim that X is true because Y publication is coming. Even if you were right in your claim and the publication is on its way, the logic would remain fallacious.
It's not fallacious just because you aren't informed. You don't have enough information to determine if I am lying or wrong.
And I should correct you and say that it isn't a problem, YOU have a problem (dissatisfaction) with it, and to that , "...and?"
If it wasn't a problem then I'd be able to happily claim a publication is coming soon that proves that if chess isn't a draw, white wins.
And it's true, I don't know if you are lying or wrong, but they both have the same outcome, the statement made is false.
Aug 17, 2019
0
#2375
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
If anyone should "math it out" it should be you.
I won't tell you who "mathed it out" but announcing something exciting is far from useless. You're just being hostile. Another reader who didn't want to get involved with this drama or who doesn't have my patience is looking forward to that.
I'm asking for evidence, you are simply not providing it and still cling to your claim-
Clinging doesn't apply anymore than burden of proof as you tried to appeal to and blame applied. This isn't an argument, your satisfaction isn't that important. I made an announcement and told everyone about something really cool, the rest is me just helping you to figure everything else out.
Yes, it is an argument, you made claim X, the responsability is on you to show it's true not on me to disprove it.
Have you provided evidence? No.
Anything else?
You're not being honest.
The claim is that this was already substantiated and it will be released in a publication of some form. That means you need only wait and see.
And that claim is unsubstantiated as well...
Then it will be substantiated when the publication is released. Everyone involved already knows and then all that's left is for randoms like you to get it when it's fed to you.
What's the problem?
The problem is that you don't provide evidence for anything you say, anybody can claim that X is true because Y publication is coming. Even if you were right in your claim and the publication is on its way, the logic would remain fallacious.
It's not fallacious just because you aren't informed. You don't have enough information to determine if I am lying or wrong.
And I should correct you and say that it isn't a problem, YOU have a problem (dissatisfaction) with it, and to that , "...and?"
If it wasn't a problem then I'd be able to happily claim a publication is coming soon that proves that if chess isn't a draw, white wins.
And it's true, I don't know if you are lying or wrong, but they both have the same outcome, the statement made is false.
No, it wouldn't be a problem for you to say that unless you have a certain threshold of responsibility. I would know you are wrong tho.
It would however be a problem for you to believe that without empirical evidence.
And no, I am not lying or wrong. What you are experiencing right now is called doubt. And in your case, that led to hostility and rage.
I also know you are wrong, the publication I'm talking about contradicts what you claimed 
Aug 17, 2019
0
#2376
If you want to close a thread, close your own thread. Stop trying to close this one with your ridiculously long posts.
Aug 17, 2019
0
#2377
Smyslov fan is right, Sticky Fingers and Prometheus, please stop cluttering the thread.
ponz111 wrote:
Just because something is "obvious" does not mean it should be easy to prove. It was obvious for many
decades that checkers was a draw with best play before this was proven by math.
That's because once they knew what "best play" was, it was very easy to prove. Nobody has any idea what best play in chess is, so how could it be obvious chess is a draw? I dont understand how something could be obvious if you dont even know all the circumstances. Maybe you meant to say as far as you know, it's obvious.
Aug 17, 2019
0
#2379
StickyFingersRequiem wrote:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
StickyFingersRequiem escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
Learn to practice restraint in quotes.
Which is? And is this one thing stronger than future computers?
no there is something stronger than the best chess engines today!
I will answer...A strong human player guiding a very strong chess engine is stronger than a very strong chess engine. [this has been proven]
And even that is a far cry from perfect play, the only perfect play we can do is mate in X, dead draws (KK for example). Anything else becomes unclear in what is the best move, hell, even top players disagree on that.
Well, it's important to remember most positions don't have a "best move"
Just look at almost any position that's in a tablebase. 10 moves win, 5 moves draw, 2 moves lose. Stuff like that.
In most positions you have options, and that's mostly when GMs will disagree. Some moves involve more risk in practical play for example.
Of course there can be multiple best moves, knowing them is another matter.