JimDiesal I was making a statement but was not making any type of argument. Just giving information...
So you agree that human experience isn't a factor in determining the solution to chess because humans haven't played enough games?
why is this forum still alive
Please, do no say thousands of perfect games were played. That is not provable with any tools we have at the moment.
He has already said opinion is evidence. So if someone has the opinion that perfect games have been played, I'm pretty sure he considers that evidence that perfect games have been played. It's possible a perfect game has been played. Unfortunately nobody knows about it. If one ever has happened, it was probably a casual game between two unwitting 1800 rated players.
Patriot again you are using the logical fallacy called "strawman" You are distorting what I actually said to try and make a point. I never once in all of these postings made the blanket statement that opinion is evidence, Opinion can only be evidence under certain conditions. So generally opinion is NOT evidence.
It really depends on the qualifications of he person or people giving the opinions. If you are sick and go to see a doctor and he gives you a variety of tests and then says you have pneumonia [as happened to me very recently] then his opinion is evidence that you actually have pneumonia.
In my situation I relied on his opinion because he was qualified to give an opinion about my medical condition. I used the medicines he prescribed as I trusted his opinion.
PATRIOT people who are often using the Strawman logical fallacy are often deceptive and disingenuous. Please think before you again use that logical fallacy?
About some perfect games having been played--it is true that most people do not know about most perfect games which have been played. It is possible for 2 low rated [your example 1800 rated players] might play a perfect game. But it is far more likely for high rated players or high rated chess engines to play a perfect game.
JimDiesel You are wrong. There nothing I have posted in these forums which would lead to the conclusion that "human experience isn't a factor in determining the solution to chess because humans haven't played enough games?" The fact that humans have played trillions of games is a factor in determining the solution to chess as in all of those trillions of games--not one game has ever been presented where one side won without the other side making a mistake.
Also there is a ton of evidence which some humans have experienced to give them a very strong belief that chess is indeed a draw. In my case from all my experience and knowledge I am more than 99.99% sure chess is a draw when neither side makes a mistake,
Almost every GM has much experience where he'she has determined chess is a draw, GMs are human.
In fact when GMs play their chess games--one thing they consider\assume in deciding their moves is that chess is a draw with best play.
About some perfect games having been played--it is true that most people do not know about most perfect games which have been played. It is possible for 2 low rated [your example 1800 rated players] might play a perfect game. But it is far more likely for high rated players or high rated chess engines to play a perfect game.
...
You are wrong. There nothing I have posted in these forums which would lead to the conclusion that "human experience isn't a factor in determining the solution to chess because humans haven't played enough games?"
Talking with @ponz111
JimDiesel you are ignoring what I have repeatedly said. Any one of these pieces of evidence does not in itself prove chess is a draw. By the way I think I said 99.99% of POSITIONS which might be generated by a 32 piece super chess engine would not be relevant. I could have just as well said 99.9999%. This has little to do with the question--is chess a draw. It is just informational.
You try to keep ignoring my repeated point that any one of these pieces of evidence does not in itself prove chess is a draw, You apparently do not understand this point so I refer you to the analogy I made of a man found dead in a room. Maybe if you read it you will understand??
Talking with @ponz111
So true
i know right lol
Players who are low rated Class A and below often tend to negate the fact that virtually all GMs believe chess is a draw with best play. The lower rated players may say that GMs will lose to the super chess engines.
But what is not often realized is that these GMs have a ton of knowledge about chess. So why do they lose vs the machines? It is simply because the machines can look at millions of chess positions per second.
It is like denigrating a person who can run a really fast marathon [by human standards] because a motor cycle can beat him.
Gms are not stupid--they know more about chess than many lower skilled players realize.
There may not have ever been a perfectly played game of chess.
Until we know what perfect is, we'll never know. Even the game 1.e4 draw agreed might not be perfect because a hundred years from now it might be proven that first move is a forced win by black.
I still think it's far too early to say whether or not chess is a draw with best play. Not only do people have a long way to go as far as chess knowledge, computers have even farther to go.
Then someone is misunderstanding the subject. Either perfect and best play mean what they mean, or they dont. But given how much people and computers both keep improving, it seems nobody has found best play yet. Best play today will lose to best play tomorrow. So it's not best play, or perfect. At least yet.
Bound to have been many. To suggest not entails a misunderstanding of the subject.
If a perfect game was played and known to be perfect, why don't people play it every time? They know it's the best choice and they know the response to every move. Or you're saying they don't know the response to every move, so they haven't proved it's perfect, and you're just an idiot.
JimDiesel you are ignoring what I have repeatedly said. Any one of these pieces of evidence does not in itself prove chess is a draw.
Everyone gets that. But all your evidence is either subjective or illogical (like no one found a win so it's a draw). I didn't even allude to that in my post. My point was that you can't follow simple logic and just repeat talking points.
JimDiesel you are ignoring what I have repeatedly said. Any one of these pieces of evidence does not in itself prove chess is a draw. By the way I think I said 99.99% of POSITIONS which might be generated by a 32 piece super chess engine would not be relevant. I could have just as well said 99.9999%. This has little to do with the question--is chess a draw. It is just informational.
Same thing. The positions produced by a table base occur in games. Ya, maybe the ratio isn't 1-to-1 but when the number is 10^114 it doesn't matter.
Christ, you can't even follow simple logic. The issue isn't that you think most positions are irrelevant. The issue is you also refer to yourself and other "experts" even though you yourself admit you have less experience on the subject than ATOMS IN THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE. You are not objective agents. You are subject to cognitive biases: ambiguity effect, anchoring, automation bias, to name a few of hundreds.
It is silly to say there is no such thing as perfect play. Perfect play as defined for this forum is play by both sides where no mistake has been made which would alter the theoretical result of the game. Thousands of perfect games have been played.
Many of these perfect games have been played by the highest levels of correspondence chess.
JimDiesal I was making a statement but was not making any type of argument. Just giving information...