True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides
Sort:
Sep 22, 2020
0
#3742
A0 is irrelevant. It does not play perfect chess. This is a dumb thread. It’s like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There is no empirical evidence either way and all responses are just speculation based upon argumentation, not proof. Anyone who makes a unequivocal claim doesn’t understand what standards of proof are in the scientific literature.
Yes, yes, yes! A thousand times yes! Please stop continuing this discussion and move on to discussing something more interesting such as Republican hypocrisy as regards the Supreme Court.
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
A0 is irrelevant. It does not play perfect chess. This is a dumb thread. It’s like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There is no empirical evidence either way and all responses are just speculation based upon argumentation, not proof. Anyone who makes a unequivocal claim doesn’t understand what standards of proof are in the scientific literature.
This comment is pinheaded scientism. Pure and simple. Get a life, please. 
Sep 22, 2020
0
#3745
@zborg - chess is a draw is an *empirical* claim, it’s not a claim one can resolve by expressing a well-crafted opinion. Empirical claims require empirical proof. Insulting me doesn’t change this basic fact. We might as well try to resolve what dark matter is made of by arguing about it instead of actually looking at it.
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
Chess is a draw is an *empirical* claim, it’s not a claim one can resolve by expressing a well-crafted opinion. Empirical claims require empirical proof.
Well, that's pretty obvious. I don't get why you feel like it's important to repeat it. Then again, I don't have any scientific evidence that you aren't made of magical lettuce so evidently the only rational thing to do is to remain agnostic on the subject.
So is there definite proof that chess is a draw? No, not until we have 32-piece tablebases.
Is it rational to assume that chess is a draw? Yes, because there's little to no indication that it isn't. There's no debate here.
Sep 22, 2020
0
#3747
pfren escribió:
Vishnusai25044 έγραψε:
"NO" because I have tried that with stockfish 12, and guess what ,WHITE WON AGAINST BLACK, so white will win, I have tried this 2 times, even though same results.
Congratulations. Now you have to set them play 10 million more games to have a sufficient statistical sample!
Just keep the experiment running until the results support your hypothesis 
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
A0 is irrelevant. It does not play perfect chess. This is a dumb thread. It’s like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There is no empirical evidence either way and all responses are just speculation based upon argumentation, not proof. Anyone who makes a unequivocal claim doesn’t understand what standards of proof are in the scientific literature.
Even though you are obviously right, it's only a matter of time before Ponz has something to say about anyone questioning that there is not enough empirical evidence.
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
@zborg - chess is a draw is an *empirical* claim, it’s not a claim one can resolve by expressing a well-crafted opinion. Empirical claims require empirical proof. Insulting me doesn’t change this basic fact. We might as well try to resolve what dark matter is made of by arguing about it instead of actually looking at it.
WRONG. The best claim for "empiricism" (however defined) is our best (to date) empirical test -- i.e. a "simulation" by the strongest chess player in the world (AlphaZero).
Your position excludes all discussion (and ANY empirical test). Which is a rather silly point of view, don't you think? Surely it's time to (for you) move beyond Logic 101 in either high school and college. Simple.
And that's not intended as an insult. It's a wake up call for the human conversation, writ large.
P.S. your (misdirecting) reference to "dark matter" sounds like an algorithm talking, unfortunately.
Alpha Zero's (practical, empirical) "answer" would be the best available at this present juncture in history. Would it not?
Sep 22, 2020
0
#3751
@way-of-pain - it certainly is not rational to assume that it isn’t. There is undoubtedly a first move advantage for white and in high level computer play, and in self play, the vast majority of decisive games are won as white. It’s not even close. The advantage in initiative is real.
Am I saying that with perfect play chess is a white win? No. Why must we assume it’s a draw, though? Why do we have to assume anything? Why... does anyone care?
And yet people fill pages with ramblings “proving” their point. Winning a forum debate does not prove that you are right, it just means you argue better.
Am I saying that with perfect play chess is a white win? No. Why must we assume it’s a draw, though? Why do we have to assume anything? Why... does anyone care?
And yet people fill pages with ramblings “proving” their point. Winning a forum debate does not prove that you are right, it just means you argue better.
Sep 22, 2020
0
#3752
@zborg - no A0 proves nothing. The claim is that it’s a draw. The vast majority of self claim games are draws. “Chess is a draw” is a universal claim, not a general one. Mostly a draw proves nothing since all you need to find is one perfect path to victory.
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
@zborg - chess is a draw is an *empirical* claim, it’s not a claim one can resolve by expressing a well-crafted opinion. Empirical claims require empirical proof. Insulting me doesn’t change this basic fact. We might as well try to resolve what dark matter is made of by arguing about it instead of actually looking at it.
No, it isn't an empirical claim and it couldn't possibly be. It can only be "empirical" if it's accepted that a sample of games is sufficient to test. Like a sufficient sample of dropping a rock to see if it moves towards the centre of the Earth in accordance with gravity or does something unexpected like turning into a bird and flying away.
In this case, those who argue that samples aren't sufficient and every possible line must be tested to see if it leads to a win are arguing against empiricism, given that testing every line is impossible. Or pointless, since chess is a draw according to maths, I would suggest, even though no mathematician knows how to prove it. 
We might as well try to resolve what dark matter is made of by arguing about it instead of actually looking at it.
It's loose matter that exists between galaxies. We can't see it.
zborg wrote:
Alpha Zero's (practical, empirical) "answer" would be the best available at this present juncture in history. Would it not?
Only if it agrees that chess is a draw with optimum play. Otherwise not.
Sep 22, 2020
0
#3756
Optimissed. You have a rather strange view of what empirical means. Empirical means based upon verifiable observation rather than conjecture or theory.
What you’re talking about is valid statistical inference, which is a subset of empirical observation.
And “see” dark matter is not contradictory. There are plenty of things that we can’t see in the normal spectrum of light, but that we “see” in other ways. As of now we cannot directly observe dark matter because as far as we know, it only interacts through gravity. That doesn’t preclude attempts to observe it in ways that we haven’t thought of yet so as to prove its existence.
What you’re talking about is valid statistical inference, which is a subset of empirical observation.
And “see” dark matter is not contradictory. There are plenty of things that we can’t see in the normal spectrum of light, but that we “see” in other ways. As of now we cannot directly observe dark matter because as far as we know, it only interacts through gravity. That doesn’t preclude attempts to observe it in ways that we haven’t thought of yet so as to prove its existence.
That's correct and if it's impossible to test every line and yet it is considered necessary to do so, something's wrong.
Dark matter, which was predicted by Kapp round about 1959, if it exists, will be detectable via its gravitational effect. However, that's difficult because, being what it is, it isn't concentrated and is amorphous. But I'm firmly convinced it's there and I'm even more convinced that I do know what I'm talking about regarding empiricism!
I've been thinking about it for about four seconds and there are two further methods of detecting dark matter. One of them is straightforward .... it is bound to absorb light. The other may be via momentum. Probably angular momentum, I should say. Can you come up with any more? This is more interesting than chess being a draw, which we know it is.
Optimissed while you know chess is a draw and while I know chess is a draw and while virtually all the top players know chess is a draw--there are many thousands of players who do not know this.
Why not create a forum on dark matter?
OK Everyone. After almost 4000 posts, why hasn't Alpha Zero been put onto this task?
It's already working on (possible) changing the rules --
https://www.zdnet.com/article/deepminds-ai-is-helping-to-re-write-the-rules-of-the-chess/?ftag=TRE-03-10aaa6b&bhid=20575108691210768145494160314087&mid=13048865&cid=717083220
So why not put it onto the issue of whether the game itself is a draw? Surely, Alpha Zero's (practical, empirical) "answer" would be the best available at this present juncture in history. Would it not?
And, on balance, that "result" would save us all lots of keystrokes in this discussion thread. QED. Ha!