True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides
Sort:
NikkiLikeChikki
Oct 1, 2020
0
#3961
There was a pop up ad that said “only people with a 160 iq can solve this puzzle.” It took me 20 seconds. I’m a genius! 🦔
Optimissed wrote:
Yes, I daresay you have. You seem to be a very angry person, among all the other deficits.
Actually, until I started the Covid discussion thread, I would periodically clear out blocks, and I only had a handful. I'm not angry, just honest. Toodles.
Nikki Yes the best correspondence players would not have made those mistakes. The best correspondence players simply no longer lose. That game had mistakes. The game would never have gotten to that position on move 8 in a games with no errors.
You ask the question if that position was forced on one of the best correspondence players would he find that move? If I was forced to that position as White in a correspondence game and if I was up on all the extras correspondence players have--I might have very well found that move. Yes, I think the very best correspondence players would have found that move--the motive has already been known.
When I was age 75 a GM came on chess.com here and gave a position that the best chess engines could not find the correct move. I solved that problem in about 7 or 8 minutes without using a computer. I used inductive reasoning I think.
Then he gave another position that the best chess engines could not solve. I solved that also in about 8 minutes. While I solved the problems without using a chess engine the very best correspondence players have an advantage over me as they use chess engines and data bases and other help--not to mention they are considerably younger. So it would be somewhat likely if forced in to that position they would find the winning line.
Optimissed wrote:
I may as well be honest about the IQ thing, though. You and some other people are obviously obsessed with it.
When I was ten, the year before we sat our examination called the 11-plus, to determine whether we'd go to a grammar school or not, we were all given a new type of intelligence test. It was meant to be a culturally neutral test and there were quite a new type of question, probably quite visual-spatial. When the results came out, I had caused quite a stir. They wouldn't tell me my score except that "it was over140". The reason would be that after 140, there are comparatively few scores and the test wouldn't be quite so standardised and accurate. But 140 isn't a significantly high IQ score and even so, child psychologists and various observers started to come to look at me. They'd come in during a maths class or one of the special ones they did to introduce new problems. Eventually they told me I'd scored the second highest in the county for years. I think I probably scored around 190, at a guess, but I have a reason to think that.
In my 20s, I had infectious hepatitis and it took me a couple of years to recover. I got a lot of exercise and I became interested, for no particular reason, in intelligence testing and I did quite a lot of tests. I deliberately did them when I was very tired, feeling ill, when I had a cold or a hangover, when I had a cold, a hangover and I was tired, when I felt normal, when I hadn't exercised, when I had, when I was feeling fairly sharp etc. What I was interested in was the spread of results I would achieve in all those conditions. I wanted to see if the myth that "how you feel doesn't affect the result too much" was true. It isn't true. But I scored a significant number of 169s and each time, I was aware that I'd made a few stupid mistakes and on a good day I could achieve abut 190. I was sure of that, which is what made me think that when I scored well in that test when I was ten, I scored 190. I know I'm more than highly intelligent so there's no reason not to assume that. High intelligence is just like being able to run fast. If someone could run a lot faster than me, I wouldn't get all upset about it. So you shouldn't be upset that someone is much more intelligent than you.
Pretty much the story I would have expected. Good luck with your 169-190 IQ 
.
To answer the original question, there is simply no way of knowing. And we will never know, because chess is simply too complex to map out even a small fraction of the possible games out there. White might be able to force a win through some complex strategy that no GM or computer has ever even contemplated. It's also possible that black can force a win. Or maybe the perfect game ends in a draw. Nobody knows.
Optimissed wrote:
If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I tried to standardise my results while also taking many tests in unpleasant circumstances. My aim was to try to determine how accurate IQ tests are and I have to say that I found they are not accurate at all. Although I scored fairly consistently when I was feeling ok, I also scored some in the 130s and 120s when I was feeling bad, having deliberately deprived myself of sleep or done tests when I was unwell, because as I mentioned, I had infectious hepatitis, which can deplete your energy considerably. I tried my hardest in all the tests I undertook, in order to try to remove bias. The lowest I scored was 116. I think it was the only one under 125. But all this was over 40 years ago and my memory isn't that accurate. I no longer have a photographic memory. Various things change as you age. In some ways your mind can improve but it digs its tracks deeper and thinking can become habitual, which is all very well when you're, say, a novelist, but not so good if you want to solve a problem no-one has solved before.
It's all good, I posted that before reading your latest responses, and it's directed more widely than at you.
Fishy Speak for yourself. Because you don't know something about chess does not mean all others don't know that something?
Tell me have you looked at all the evidence? Do you know what the evidence is? Is your chess knowledge high enough to understand the evidence??
GMprop First it Has been proven chess is a draw.
Second nobody is forcing anybody to give their opinion on the question of the forum.
Your reasoning is way out of line if you think anybody is being forced to give an opinion on whether chess is a draw or not?
You said chess is probably a draw now you are going back to chess is definitely a draw.
Senile old man, bruh 🦔
True. Now could we just agree and move on.
Oct 1, 2020
0
#3972
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
So I watched something instructive and very on-point as far as this thread is concerned.
There is a video on YouTube called “Leela Chess Zero Makes Mind Blowing Sacrifice,” and yes, it’s the most mind blowing thing I’ve seen in chess.
On move 8 Leela makes a long term positional sacrifice and is down a bishop seemingly for nothing. Stockfish thinks it is winning for about the next twenty moves, but then slowly slowly slowly its evaluation goes from positive to negative. As far as Stockfish knew, it was Leela who blundered, and no human or combination of human/computer would ever make this move because it’s so obviously losing.
As far as Stockfish was concerned, it made 0 errors, 0 mistakes, and all best moves, but it lost. And this wasn’t some weak version of Stockfish, this happened a few months ago.
So the point is that no matter how deep you go, you can always go deeper. You never ever know if you played the best response.
Go watch the video. It’s the most amazing game I think I’ve ever seen.
There is a video on YouTube called “Leela Chess Zero Makes Mind Blowing Sacrifice,” and yes, it’s the most mind blowing thing I’ve seen in chess.
On move 8 Leela makes a long term positional sacrifice and is down a bishop seemingly for nothing. Stockfish thinks it is winning for about the next twenty moves, but then slowly slowly slowly its evaluation goes from positive to negative. As far as Stockfish knew, it was Leela who blundered, and no human or combination of human/computer would ever make this move because it’s so obviously losing.
As far as Stockfish was concerned, it made 0 errors, 0 mistakes, and all best moves, but it lost. And this wasn’t some weak version of Stockfish, this happened a few months ago.
So the point is that no matter how deep you go, you can always go deeper. You never ever know if you played the best response.
Go watch the video. It’s the most amazing game I think I’ve ever seen.
That's neat! It really poses challenges for us in a hope to solve chess because moves we would like to filter out as 'obviously bad' might not be guaranteed to be. Just because there's no conceivable way a move can be good to us, doesn't mean we aren't missing something deep.
Oct 1, 2020
0
#3973
@michael. I know, right?! There are some overhyped titles, but that YouTube video is fire! That is one super deep move. It’s insane.
Oct 1, 2020
0
#3974
@Marks - you’re surprised at his Ponzie scheme? No hedgehog is safe from the prevaricating Ponzie!
Nikki in your post 4231 you give this statement "On move 8 Leela makes a long term positional sacrifice seemingly for nothing" Your statement is only true for weak chess players. Strong chess players can see the benefits of the positional sacrifice.
Mark you are correct I should have said definitely true instead of probably true. I am willing to admit it if I make an error. However you made an error when you said "I have the IQ of a hedgehog"
Oct 1, 2020
0
#3977
Ponz. You’re ridiculous. Seriously. If you’re saying that any strong player would make that sacrifice, you really are clueless.
That position has been reached hundreds of times in the database and it’s a move 8 novelty. If you would’ve seen Leela play the move and lost, you’d be talking about how stupid it was.
You really are silly. Everyone here accepts of my mathematical arguments about conjectures... everyone but you. They accept them because they 100% are airtight. All you do is repeat the same crap about your evidence. It’s nauseating. Your evidence isn’t evidence. I’ve explained to you in the simplest terms how it doesn’t meet the standard of evidence, and you just ignore arguments that you can’t answer and repeat. Meanwhile, I directly answer all of your objections, and you respond by repeating them. Oh, and calling me not smart enough to grasp your simplistic EVIDENCE.
My guess is that you don’t even read through what I say. You probably read the first line then go to sleep. Seriously, I’ve tried really hard to explain concepts having to do with research design, standards of evidence, burden of proof, and ways of proving this conjecture with lots of historical analogies and hedgehogs. Nope. Nothing. You’re so sure of your EVIDENCE that nothing else matters.
Ridiculous.
That position has been reached hundreds of times in the database and it’s a move 8 novelty. If you would’ve seen Leela play the move and lost, you’d be talking about how stupid it was.
You really are silly. Everyone here accepts of my mathematical arguments about conjectures... everyone but you. They accept them because they 100% are airtight. All you do is repeat the same crap about your evidence. It’s nauseating. Your evidence isn’t evidence. I’ve explained to you in the simplest terms how it doesn’t meet the standard of evidence, and you just ignore arguments that you can’t answer and repeat. Meanwhile, I directly answer all of your objections, and you respond by repeating them. Oh, and calling me not smart enough to grasp your simplistic EVIDENCE.
My guess is that you don’t even read through what I say. You probably read the first line then go to sleep. Seriously, I’ve tried really hard to explain concepts having to do with research design, standards of evidence, burden of proof, and ways of proving this conjecture with lots of historical analogies and hedgehogs. Nope. Nothing. You’re so sure of your EVIDENCE that nothing else matters.
Ridiculous.
Oct 1, 2020
0
#3979
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
Ponz. You’re ridiculous.
I'm leaning towards Ponz.
Your posts are tiresome and they put me to sleep. I rarely read past the first line, of course.
