Absent some sort of mathematical proof or an examination of the universe of chess games, we cannot definitively conclude chess is a draw.
Neither exists so we don’t know, and possibly can never know.
That is the simple irrefutable fact.
True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides
Sort:
Sep 30, 2020
0
#3842
Mathematicians would call it the “Chess is a Draw Conjecture.” To them, a conjecture is something that has preliminary supporting evidence, but has neither been proven or disproven. Some conjectures turn out to be true, some false.
Absent some sort of mathematical proof or an examination of the universe of chess games, we cannot definitively conclude chess is a draw.
Neither exists so we don’t know, and possibly can never know.
That is the simple irrefutable fact.
Absent some sort of mathematical proof or an examination of the universe of chess games, we cannot definitively conclude chess is a draw.
Neither exists so we don’t know, and possibly can never know.
That is the simple irrefutable fact.
Sep 30, 2020
0
#3844
Hey. I’ve already admitted that chess is probably a draw, but Ponzie argues that it’s definitely a draw, which is ridiculous.
A perfect example is Euler’s sum of powers conjecture. I won’t go into details because they’re irrelevant, but for a couple of centuries people argued about it and most believed it to be true because it just made so much sense. Sound familiar?
Then in 1966 a counterexample was found by brute force using a computer search, so the conjecture was proven to be false.
Is chess a draw? Probably.
A perfect example is Euler’s sum of powers conjecture. I won’t go into details because they’re irrelevant, but for a couple of centuries people argued about it and most believed it to be true because it just made so much sense. Sound familiar?
Then in 1966 a counterexample was found by brute force using a computer search, so the conjecture was proven to be false.
Is chess a draw? Probably.
Sep 30, 2020
0
#3845
A single ten foot tall hedgehog cannot exist, and this precludes the use of heavy machinery!!!!
Now, perhaps a team of hedgehogs acting in concert could operate heavy machinery, but this only counts if you consider bughouse to be chess, which it’s not.
Now, perhaps a team of hedgehogs acting in concert could operate heavy machinery, but this only counts if you consider bughouse to be chess, which it’s not.
Mathematicians would call it the “Chess is a Draw Conjecture.” To them, a conjecture is something that has preliminary supporting evidence
...making The Fonz right, right ?
Sep 30, 2020
0
#3847
lfPatriotGames escribió:
I could only read some of the last couple pages. Three things I know for sure. One, talking about probability and statistics is boring beyond words. Two, Optimissed says it in a way that's much more likeable. Three, Nikki says what's true.
Sep 30, 2020
0
#3848
Einstein believed with all his heart that there was no way that the quantum world was probabilistic or that quantum entanglement could exist. At a fundamental level of human understanding it makes absolutely zero sense. I am willing to admit that there was some positive probability that he was smarter than I am, but he turned out to be dead wrong.
Go ahead and believe that chess is definitely a draw. That’s your right. It doesn’t make it true, and you have no proof, but feel free to believe whatever you’d like.
Go ahead and believe that chess is definitely a draw. That’s your right. It doesn’t make it true, and you have no proof, but feel free to believe whatever you’d like.
Sep 30, 2020
0
#3850
@lola no. Ponzie is not right. As I said before, lots of conjectures have had preliminary supporting evidence that have proven to be false. Ponzie claims his evidence as proof, which it’s not. A conjecture by definition can give you no more than “probably,” which I’ve already agreed to.
Sep 30, 2020
0
#3851
@nm marks - ok. Perhaps if you significantly modified the heavy machinery, there might be a way for a single, non-genetically engineered hedgehog to operate heavy machinery... in theory! In practice, OSHA regulations, union objections to nonhumans taking their jobs, and the need to hibernate in the winter months would make it a practical impossibility.
So... maybe?
So... maybe?
Sep 30, 2020
0
#3852
I think that Wisconsin hedgehogs are smarter than those where you are. They can probably handle the machinery.
Sep 30, 2020
0
#3854
@optimissed: you’ve once again sidestepped the point of the analogy. The point was that absent conclusive evidence, even smart people who are certain of their opinions, can be wrong.
For instance sheep can definitely not operate heavy machinery. At least hedgehogs have little paws, but sheep have hooves! You can’t grasp anything with a hoof!
For instance sheep can definitely not operate heavy machinery. At least hedgehogs have little paws, but sheep have hooves! You can’t grasp anything with a hoof!
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
@lola no. Ponzie is not right. As I said before, lots of conjectures have had preliminary supporting evidence that have proven to be false. Ponzie claims his evidence as proof, which it’s not. A conjecture by definition can give you no more than “probably,” which I’ve already agreed to.
i dont really like Fonzies approach. he seemsta be basing it purely on empiricism (hes like 147) and excluding theory. which to me is kinda hillbilly. butt (and hes kinda one & he knows it), he is not being proven wrong cuz the empirical avenue has always been very strong evidence ! its s/t we cannot argue with, right ? right now, chessed is a draw until proven theoretically o/w. will it ?...trust me a wooden-clad case will be made as towers get stronger. butt (lol !) the fonz is the fonz and he is Thee Tower right now.
caveat: im respectful of STEM theory but i make my decisions using it as combined with primary practical reasoning (like teezing ponz). and in my tiny mind & on my tiny island ?...practice leads & theory supports (actually s/t's theory doesnt even come in).
...and thats all i hafta say to you. goodbye.
Optimissed wrote:
@NikkiLikeChikki
The simple, irrefutable fact is that a proper, mathematical proof of the Chess is a Draw Conjecture will possibly never be performed.
That's all and in the meantime, we can believe what we wish. Are we agreed?
Thanks for agreeing that there's no solution and that Ponz cannot make this claim. It's an opinion, without proof.
Sep 30, 2020
0
#3857
@Optomissed did you just diss a guy with 60 more iq points than you?
Optimissed schreef:
Look, this is silly. You and btickler are claiming to be intelligent. btickler obviously isn't but I thought you were, but just a mite confused. If you can't follow a simple explanation, what's the point?
The dart hits the dartboard and so the probability of that is unity. If you claim that there are infinite points on the board that it may hit then the probability of it hitting one of them is unity divided by infinity and clearly it cannot be zero, because zero is a real concept, relating to an identifiable situation, such as "there are no pennies in my piggybank". But the analogy with the dartboard is "there are no brain cells in btickler's head", meaning hardly any at all.
It is clear that you know nothing about mathematics and there is nothing wrong with that. You have to be careful when using infinity in mathematics. The probability of hitting a point in that example is indeed zero. However you cannot use that to reason that the probability of hitting the board is zero, because the addition law for probabilities cannot be used since the number of points on the board is not countable. Also you can find a good explanation of impossible events here: https://www.statlect.com/glossary/impossible-event
Yes, there are different types of infinity. So it is a bad idea to use it like a number. Let's say that A(n) and B(n) go to infinity as n goes to infinity. Then A(n)/B(n) isn't necessarily one as n goes to infinity. You can find examples that A(n)/B(n) goes to infinity or zero.
Sep 30, 2020
0
#3859
You pretty much called Einstein a failure, yet he has done more than you ever will.
I believe from 62 years of playing chess and thousands of my own games that chess is a draw unless one side or the other makes a mistake...
"Chess without mistakes is nothing." ~ K. Richter