THX 4 NOT UPPERCASING 
True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides
Sort:
Elroch I don;t understand your sentence--who is the 2700 player you refer to??and who is the 3500 player?? both are way below the level of the top entity.
iof i am ble to mnot upper case for a while i do.
IRON thank you for understanding what is the current top enmtity mnow.
IRON I am doing more than speculasting--I am giving a ton of evidence--most you mhjave not seen. iot ios pro0ving by a whjole lot of evidence. it is mot m,athj provinmg as that will mnever jhappen., i do mnot thjink you ever saw my anaologyu of a crime scene?
hoever if you do mot care to lpook at thje evidence thjen of course your work--you may consider done. i do0 mthank you again for postring thjose games.
May 19, 2021
0
#8327
I'm a purist -- I want a mathematical proof. Ponz, I'm sure you are sincere, but I don't find anecdotal or even statistical evidence at all convincing because of the absolute way I interpret the question in this thread's title. I don't have anything further to say that hasn't already been said. I wish you well with your research.
in checkers thjere were math purists and there were intuitive pragmatistss for m,any decqades. The intuitive pragmatists knew checkers was aq drawe long before it was math provenn.
bismark are you aware of all thje evidence that chess is a draw?
whether or mnot you can prove somethjing greatly depends on who you are tryin g to p[rove iot to?
May 19, 2021
0
#8331
ponz111 wrote:
in checkers thjere were math purists and there were intuitive pragmatistss for m,any decqades. The intuitive pragmatists knew checkers was aq drawe far before it was math provenn.
I agree with your statement, except I would replace the word "knew" with "believed" in the last sentence. Without definite proof, we can believe (or have faith) that a statement is true, but not know (with certainty). For example, I believe there is life in the ocean under the ice surface of Europa (a moon of Jupiter). For me, "knowing" implies already having definite empirical or mathematical proof. When we finally get our submarine probe to Europa, and send back video of lifeforms, then I will "know" there is life there (I'm 60, but hope to live long enough to see this). I guess this is analogous to the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
May 19, 2021
0
#8332
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
I see no reason to find your assertion plausible. The type of analysis necessary to avoid losing is very similar to the sort of analysis needed to win, because it requires showing every opponent move fails to lead to a forced win.
You have made a fundamental, logical error, of the type that you say you never make. You are comparing dissimilar things. I shall put it this way: you must formally prove that in order to show that chess is drawn, every possible line must be examined to its end. You're assuming something that isn't the case.
In my opinion you are not adding anything of any value to this discussion. What's more, you're persisting in using a nearly illegible colour. I think that is done deliberately to make it harder for people to answer you.
Your expertise in statistics isn't helping you here because you misunderstand the fundamental nature of the problem and you cling to assumptions that are incorrect. I'm not going to answer any more of your stuff because you deliberately ignore my points, such as the impossibility of using exhaustive analysis to prove anything, because such results couldn't possibly be checked. I don't think you think, you know.
And meanwhile, Ponz still hasn't clicked that Rattigan is a troll. Pathetic, really. Misquoting and ignoring good arguments is what trolls do.
There are games for which there are shortcuts available to easily derive powerful general results. For example it is obvious that in any analog of tictactoe, the first player is not at a disadvantage (because a position is also at least as good for a player as the same position with one of his symbols removed). Chess is not such a game. Such general rules are entirely unknown in chess except in very carefully defined special positions, and even then the impact on the complexity of the whole problem is miniscule (because the most numerous possibilities are the intractable ones). There is only a small amount of symmetry to chess - a board symmetry group of order 2 for positions where castling is not relevant, and a group of order 8 for positions where castling is irrelevant and there are no pawns.
But I am sure you say the same about checkers and you can easily explain to Schaeffer why he was foolish to waste 13 years of computation to prove that checkers was a draw with perfect play by achieving exactly what I have described - an explicit strategy for each side proven to achieve a draw - rather than show your belief is true.
In any case, my position here is that the value of the opening position in chess is not known because no-one can do an analog of Schaeffer's computation, and there is no hint of a way to sufficiently simplify the calculation. I also believe you can't shortcut the calculation and no-one else can: feel free to demonstrate I am wrong in the only way possible! [Hint: guessing something exists does not suffice].
You're guessing something doesn't exist. The difficult mathematical problems get solved, even though they always say they're insoluble.
So I'm guessing and so are you: but I have history on my side, as well as the unshakable belief among most strong players that chess is a draw. Why isn't it a draw? How come the tendency for all positions, correctly played by both sides to tend towards a draw, can suddenly, unexpectedly and miraculously be reversed ..... and always outside whatever analysis range we can set up?
I'm better at guessing than you, maybe.
Only when there is no possibility of your guess being tested, it seems! Your belief is very likely false (my opinion, which I am sure agrees with those who have worked on such things) but not falsifiable.
Amusingly, this is a mirror of the viewpoint that chess is a draw, where I fully acknowledge that it is most likely true, but unproven.
My belief that there is no computationally feasible proof of the value of chess is falsifiable but extremely reliable (by contrast, for the proposition that chess is a draw falsification seems beyond reach - it would require a computationally feasible proof that chess is a win!).
Your belief has the same status as saying "there might be a green Yeti somewhere we have not looked". I can't disprove this, but I am confident it is false. I am more confident there is no computationally undemanding solution of chess.
"chess is a draw, where I fully acknowledge that it is most likely true, but unproven." Bingo! +1 I don't understand why some insist that they know chess is a draw with no exhaustive proof?
depends what yhou mean by "exhaustic proof".
question? Are there thin gs you b elieve wikthout exhaustic proof?
ELROCH even as a new playuer at 8 yuears old--I had a strategy on hoiw to win with K and Q vs a lone K. yhou seem to be making very simple chjess thin gs hard?
Chess is a draw with best play from both sides. That's why higher rated players tend to draw more.
Iron-Toad wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
in checkers thjere were math purists and there were intuitive pragmatistss for m,any decqades. The intuitive pragmatists knew checkers was aq drawe far before it was math provenn.
I agree with your statement, except I would replace the word "knew" with "believed" in the last sentence. Without definite proof, we can believe (or have faith) that a statement is true, but not know (with certainty). For example, I believe there is life in the ocean under the ice surface of Europa (a moon of Jupiter). For me, "knowing" implies already having definite empirical or mathematical proof. When we finally get our submarine probe to Europa, and send back video of lifeforms, then I will "know" there is life there (I'm 60, but hope to live long enough to see this). I guess this is analogous to the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
There's already been quite a to and fro of discussion about the relationship of knowledge and belief. With my background in philosophy, I accept that knowledge is a subset of belief which is highly confirmed and justified. It is difficult to be sure of absolute knowledge, even with proofs, which can be flawed, and empirical evidence, which can be misinterpreted. The statement "there is no absolute knowledge" is obviously incorrect, since it's self-negating. Therefore, it's also correct. It's a tricky business but I think we have to be more fluid about the idea of what we know. I tried to pump Elroch, who is a statistician, on what and how we can know, but he wouldn't answer.
He believes in the Big Bang. He thinks he knows, as a scientist, that the Big Bang occurred. Obviously there is no firm proof for it, so it's still an hypothesis. An incorrect one, in my belief.
It's a tricky business. So I am happy to accept that I know that chess is a draw. It's the most accurate statement I can think of, on the subject.
Incidentally, Elroch likes talking down to people, which irritates me, because he makes logical errors. He also makes incorrect propositions, such as "I do not make logical errors". Here's a rather daft and very recent example. He just wrote this about my thoughts on the subject:
<<<<Your belief has the same status as saying "there might be a green Yeti somewhere we have not looked". I can't disprove this, but I am confident it is false. I am more confident there is no computationally undemanding solution of chess.>>>>
There's something in psychology called "projecting". It's rather amusing that this applies more, much more, to the writer than to the writer's target.
Obviously, the green yeti is the hidden win among the drawing lines. It is not the mathematical solution to chess, which I am sure is possible but which is not the subject of this thread. He doesn't even see that and such is the standard of discussion here.
The idea of mathematical representation of chess is not central to the discussion. Most contributors have preferred the idea of "complete analysis of chess". There are a couple of problems with that. Firstly, a complete analysis wouldn't, itself, be a proof of anything, since it would have to be rigorously proven that it really was a complete analysis. I've mentioned it before but no-one has picked up on it. Also I've pointed out something else that is obvious to me .... that the nature of a proof that chess is a draw must be methodologically different from a proof in the case that chess is a win. But this has been met by blank incomprehension, except in the cases of a couple of people who were "just visiting" and who had less patience than I seem to have but who accepted the truth of that. They must have been quite intelligent.
The proofs must be different in nature and that is confirmed when we consider the differences between a forced win, which may well be a unique line, and the myriads of drawing lines that will exist if chess is a draw.
ELROCH please amdwer my very short question about 2700 and 3500? [I thjink you have m isconception s about both numbersd?]
THE FORUM QUESTION IS: TRUE OR FALSE--=CHESS AS A DRAW WITH BEST PLAY FROM BOTH SIDES?
. IN REALITY IT CAN ONLY BE TRUE OR FALSE.
THE FORUM DOES NOT ASK IF CHESS CAN BE PROVEN TO BE A DRAW WITH BEST PLAY? HOWEVER I AND OTHERS HAVE GIVEN EVIDENCE THAT CHESS IS A DRAW.
MANY SAY THEY DO NOT KNOW IF CHESS IS A DRAW OR NOT? SOME SAY THEY WILL ONLY ACCEPT ONE KIND OF EVIDENCE OR PROOF REGARDING THE FORUM, QUESTION. THEY POINT TO A POSSIBLE PROOF TJHAT LIKELY WILL NEVER HAPPEN. THOSE SAME PEOPLE ALMOST ALWAYS DO NOT KNOW OR UNDERSTAND MOST OF TJHE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THESE FORUMS.
HOWEVER THERE IS A VERY OBVIOUS TREND THAT THE MORE YOU KNOW ABOUT CHESS--THE
MORE LIKELY YOU WILL BELIEVE CHESS IS A DRAW.
SAME THING HAPPENED IN CHECKERS.
--[MY LITTLE JOKE]
mar you are talking about a strong entity which includes top engines and more and you ask how it compares to top engines, ?? it obviously has some things top engines do not have. It cannot be worse to top engines and I have explained how it might be better.
however i have said the top engines may be catching up.