True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides

ponz111, there are mathematical proofs that (for example) a number with certain properties exists, even though the proof doesn't say which number has the properties or give any suggestion on how to determine the number. Such proofs are known as nonconstructive proofs or pure existence proofs. The canonical example is this one, which answers the question of whether there are irrational numbers a and b such that a^b is a rational number. The proof shows that there are such numbers, but it does so without saying what the numbers are.

By the way, you should block the abusive poster, and you won't have to see his abuse any longer (in your own threads).

I think that the fundamental problem which makes this debate go in circles over and over again (which in the end appears to make it futile in that no real consensus which would be agreed upon by everyone is expected to be found) is what I have already been identifying in the original thread.

We always need to be aware of what level of abstraction we're currently at.

• "It is not true that it is known whether P could possibly be either true or false"
• "It is not true that it is known whether P is true or false"
• "P is false"

These are three entirely different statements, yet the general ideas behind each and any of them have been confused with each other time after time in countless posts made by various members over the course of the debate (which, if I have been somewhat able to keep track, by now spans already three threads, dozens of pages, and many hundreds of posts), whether by accident, or perhaps with an aim of purposefully excercise sophistry in an effort to try to come out on top even when unable to disprove other parties' theses in a consistent manner.

Here's some neat info:

http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/351/what-is-the-status-for-seven-man-end-game-table-bases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase

"Physical limitations of computer hardware aside, in principle it is possible to solve any game under the condition that the complete state is known and there is no random chance. Strong solutions, i.e. algorithms that can produce perfect play from any position,^[5] are known for some simple games such as Tic Tac Toe (draw with perfect play) and Connect Four (first player wins). Weak solutions exist for somewhat more complex games, such as checkers (with perfect play on both sides the game is known to be a draw, but it is not known for every position created by less-than-perfect play what the perfect next move would be). Other games, such as chess (from the starting position) and Go, have not been solved because their game complexity is too vast for computers to evaluate all possible positions. To reduce the game complexity, researchers have modified these complex games by reducing the size of the board, or the number of pieces, or both."

thanks, good information!

Let us say that a thousand years from now a supercomputer runs its calculions faster than the speed of light.  Thus this supercomputer could do a 32 piece tablebase but it would still take a year to get the result and would cost a lot of whatever stands for money in that futture..

What would happen? Would they give this supercomputer the probem "is chess a draw with best play?"

I would suggest they would not spend the time and money for these reasons:

1. There are far more important questions to answer in the next year for this supercomputer.

2. It would be too expensive.

3. and this is most important--the general public by that time would already know that chess is a draw even though it has not been proven.

How would they "know"??

Because Houdini 132 has played Stockfish  124  [the strongest chess engines on earth rated above 4400].  They have played over one million games, alternating Whilte and EVERY game came out to be a draw.

In fact, for the general public, 1000 years from now, chess as we know it had been abandoned. Too many drawing lines were known.

They were playing a variation of chess where is added one piece which had the properties of both a queen and a knight  and another piece which had the proberties of a knight and bishop. Also the board in the new chess was 9 by 9 with an additional pawn for each side added...

Is the calculion a sort of a mythmatical beast, or is it a new unit of measurement being an amalgamate of, say, a horsepower and a gigaFLOPS?

This is exactly how they make the tablebases. 3-men was reconstructed backwards from mating positions and 2-men "tablebase" (everything is a draw), 4-men from mate and 3-men, etc.

(sorry, not on topic, but when people start discussing the meaning of "exist", I'm out)

It's 10^(10^80).

It is the near a googolplex.

(10^(10^100))

The fastest computer goes at 30ish petaFLOPs.

You are correct, but your statement is moronic, unfortunately.

Confusing the existence of a mathematical proof for a solution to chess is entirely different from the practical question of whether the thoroughly balanced game of chess might be a practical DRAW, with sufficient play by both sides.

Tic tac toe, and checkers have both been proven to be a draw.

The real PRACTICAL issue is whether white can force a win in chess.

All the rest of this thread is BLATHER about existence theorems in MATH, by people who should know better.  BUT THEY DON'T!

And @Ponz, who is my friend, keeps stretching what he wants to claim, regarding the DRAW contention that he is making.  And that FACT keeps turning this discussion into verbal chaos.

This nutty thread keeps re-treading these isssues, OVER AND OVER again.

Some folks, like @IronTiger, clearly understand this FACT, but too many other participants are clueless.

Round and Round we go???

Get off you damn hobby horses and join the HUMAN Conversation.  This isn't an exercise in the meaning of mathematical proof, or the claims of logical positivisim, or the nature of scientific thought.  You guys are drowning in syllogistic BS.  It went out of date 113 years ago.  Join us in the present.  The year is 2013.

Please, Snap Out of It.  For your own sake.  

True. Houdini3 Vs Houdini3. Black Vs White. = Draw. White Attacks. Black Defends. Defending Vs Attacking = Equal. When Equal Skill Is Involved!

In short?

Yep.

Best play is 100% Guaranteed to be a draw (IF perfect play is done)

Black is not better then white.

White is not better then black.

Snap snap crackle and pop.  Hope with this I have snapped out of it.

[the palindrome helps]

Best Play is a Draw.

Best is NOT "perfect play," which is largely devoid of practical meaning, and produces massive verbal chaos in this thread.

@Ponz's minimalist assertion is reasonably true, and hardly controversial.

Now, why is that so hard to understand?  Compare posts #153 and #156.

End of Story.  I need a stiff drink.  

2500 what?  You're a GM nowadays?  Were those score sheets lost too?  If I had a rating of nearly 2200, I'd be pretty happy with that.

10352797: DAVID C TAYLOR

Tournament directors should use the appropriate published rating unless otherwise announced in all pre-tournament publicity. For events that begin prior to October 1st, the September supplement should be used. The ratings shown on this page are official published ratings, which the USCF issues twelve times a year. As of September 1, 2013, official ratings lists are generated on the 3rd Wednesday of each month and become official on the 1st day of the next month. for unofficial rating information from recently rated events, see the 'Tnmt Hst' tab.   Current Published Rating (September Supplement) Regular Rating 2188   1990-01   Quick Rating (Unrated)     Blitz Rating (Unrated)       Show Ratings History Graphs   Show Game Statistics Correspondence Rating 2382 State IL Expiration Dt. Life Member   Voting Member Status Eligible to be a Voting Member, but not Registered to Vote. Voter Registration Page Last Change Dt. 2009-10-05