This thread is probably proof that not all good chess players are mathematicians.
True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides
Sort:
ponz111 wrote:
Many players already have played a perfect game where no mistakes were made. These are often short games where a draw is agreed to early.
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 agreed drawn
Actually there have already been thousands of perfect games played.
If the game is short you do not need a super computer to tell if the game is a perfect game.
How do you know that these moves are not mistakes? e4 could lead to a forced loss, and Nf3 could be drawn when other moves win. Without tablebases that cover ALL positions, you will not know
Defintely How do I know that such moves such as 1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nf6 are not mistakes? I know from many years of experience and some chess knowledge and ability that these moves are not mistakes and just as good as many other sequences.
I do not need a tablebase that covers ALL positions to tell me if these moves are not mistakes.
There is never going to be a tablebase which covers all positions as the time will run out before such a tablebase can be made.
If somebody else does not know that there are no mistakes in the above sequence that is his problem.
Some people are emamored with the idea of a 32 piece tablebase.
We have now a 6 piece tablebase and they are working on a 7 piece tablebase.
However, it ain't gonna happen. There will be no 32 piece tablebase. The sun will explode and the stars and and planets will turn to a very thin dust before this happens.
Each piece added increases the complexity by a factor of about 60.
So a 7 piece table base would be about 60 times as complex as the existing 6 piece table base.
So, it just ain't gonna happen and if someone wants to wait to prove something with such a table base the wait will be longer than billions of years.
Sep 3, 2013
0
#86
When a computer engine is analysing a position and trying to find the best move, the "best move" changes frequently as the computer looks further and further into the future. Even when the computer is looking 50-ply ahead the "best move" remains uncertain and may change at 51-ply. But there are no computers that can look 50-ply ahead of the starting position. Our human experience is that 1.e4 seems to work well for white, but that's only playing against other humans. If you play 1.e4 against the current strongest chess engine you will still lose. And in 10 years' time the current strongest chess engine playing 1.e4 will lose to the future strongest chess engine. But even that chess engine won't be close to analysing at 50-ply.
i think one man can be better then the other one and each side could make no mistake but the other one was better so he would win.
ponz111 wrote:
Defintely How do I know that such moves such as 1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nf6 are not mistakes? I know from many years of experience and some chess knowledge and ability that these moves are not mistakes and just as good as many other sequences.
I do not need a tablebase that covers ALL positions to tell me if these moves are not mistakes.
Well, ok, but then don't use the word "know" as if it had some mathematical sense.
Have you noticed how often this thread's posts get caught up in an infinite regression argument? Post #101 is good example, but there are many, many others.
Calling Georg Cantor. Georg, we really need you now!
http://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-The-Loss-of-Certainty/dp/B003VT4WZG/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1378219146&sr=1-3&keywords=mathematics+loss+of+certainty
Irontiger
I know chess is a draw and I used math and other means as evidence.
Some players insist that this cannot be proven without a 32 piece tablebase but I disagree. I also state there will never be a 32 piece tablebase.
If someone plays 1. e4 against a super computer and loses it does not follow logically that this means 1. e4 is a bad move or a mistake.
If two players play and neither makes a mistake but one player is better than the other the player who is better will not win. What counts is the actually moves made not which player is better.
The fact that a super computer can change its mind about what it thinks is the very best move does not mean that there are not other moves which are not mistakes.
Such a supercomputer has a choice of several moves which are not mistakes.
There is no one best move in many positions. Here is an example
ponz111 wrote:
There is no one best move in many positions.
None claimed the opposite. So what ?
The overwhelming majority of GMs thinks that chess is a draw (if both sides make best moves in every position to occur).
This is not a mathematical proof. let me also tell you that THERE IS NO mathematical proof whether or not chess is a draw. I am a Mathematician, and I would have heard if there is an answer to the question.
The belief of GMs is shared by many other experienced players.
It is based on the observation that there are incredibly many positions with material or/and positional advantage are theoretical draws (simpliest example: K+ 2 knights vs. K). The longer you play, the more you like endgames, and the more you will see cases of such type.
Endgames Rock! And you can learn to convert wins at very high speeds, too.
Sep 3, 2013
0
#98
ponz111 wrote:
Defintely How do I know that such moves such as 1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nf6 are not mistakes? I know from many years of experience and some chess knowledge and ability that these moves are not mistakes and just as good as many other sequences.
I do not need a tablebase that covers ALL positions to tell me if these moves are not mistakes.
There is never going to be a tablebase which covers all positions as the time will run out before such a tablebase can be made.
If somebody else does not know that there are no mistakes in the above sequence that is his problem.
Just because there have been no lines discovered to have 100% accuracy in beating moves like 1.e4,e5,2.Nf3,Nc6 doesn't mean that there aren't any.
These lines may go to like 50-100 moves deep.
but if there is a move to counter every white move then it is a perfect line where black wins because white played 1. e4.
again just because no one has played a perfect line doesn't mean that the move is perfect.
the 60 figure was probably just made up.
now that quantum computers have arrived once someone is rich enough to make one to simulate and play chess games they will simulate every single possible position of the board in a few years.1-2 at max
I believe that we will never solve the problem. Because I believe there will never be a compter that can go through all possible games (that would be necessary to answer the problem; ... but those are more than elementary particles in the universe - that numer given according to some cosmologic hypothesis).
Note, I am not asking the engine to 'list' all these games, because this is evidently then impossible ( even if the engine could write down all games for us, the lifespan of mankind is not long enough to check the completeness of the list and correctness of the conclusions).
I emphasize, my claim does not depend on whether or not we 'believe' in the correctness/validity of the engine's work :
This is similar to the mentioned 4-colour problem. Some Math proofs exist that are more than 10 000 pages long, no one has read them, but we 'trust' the conclusions of the proof, because we assume that the engine who wrote down these pages did not commit errors. We have the 'right' to do so, because the steps of such long proofs are completely formalized and consist just of checking a tremendous number of cases by using very simple tools. Each step can be carried out by a first-year student without thinking.
Sep 3, 2013
0
#100
schlechter55 wrote:
I believe that we will never solve the problem. Because I believe there will never be a compter that can go through all possible games (that would be necessary to answer the problem; ... but those are more than elementary particles in the universe - that numer given according to some cosmologic hypothesis).
Note, I am not asking the engine to 'list' all these games, because this is evidently then impossible ( even if the engine could write down all games for us, the lifespan of mankind is not long enough to check the completeness of the list and correctness of the conclusions).
I emphasize, my claim does not depend on whether or not we 'believe' in the correctness/validity of the engine's work :
This is similar to the mentioned 4-colour problem. Some Math proofs exist that are more than 10 000 pages long, no one has read them, but we 'trust' the conclusions of the proof, because we assume that the engine who wrote down these pages did not commit errors. We have the 'right' to do so, because the steps of such long proofs are completely formalized and consist just of checking a tremendous number of cases by using very simple tools. Each step can be carried out by a first-year student without thinking.
I think the number of particles in the universe is more than the number of possible chess positions.
how can you actuallly get higher than 10^10^80??
There are at least two ways to try and prove chess is a draw. One is "mathematical proof" and using that--it is undetermined chess is a draw with best play as we cannot use that type of proof as this kind of proof is beyond our reach. The sun will explode before this type of proof is available. There will not be a 32 piece computer solution. So the first way does not work.
There is also circumstantial proof using math. This is not 100% proof, but there is over 99% chance that chess is a draw.
I have given the circumstantial proofs and they are very compelling and noone has really argued against them.
And I know that my being more than 99% sure chess is a draw is not the same as it is 99% sure chess is a draw.
I declare chess is a draw with best play as I am very satisfied with the circumstantial evidence from which I came to the conclusion.
Well
prove that there is a 99% chance for chess being a draw.
We are talking about perfect chess here not just ordinary chess played by ordinary people.