"Sometimes science needs an assumption or something likely to be true to build further results or to explain some real world phenomenon. There is no serious scientist in the whole world who would say that we should simply assume that chess is a draw until proven otherwise." First you say science needs and assumption likely to be true and chess is a draw is an assumption likely to be true as not only do the top players believe it is true buy many posting here believe it is better than 50% chance. So a scientist who is also a top chess player would NOT say we should simply assume chess is a draw--what he would say is you can make a likely hypothesis that chess is a draw and test the hypothesis. The various tests will be indications of the truth or not truth of the hypothesis. Making an informed hypothesis is not at all like saying you must assume this or that.
True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides
Speaking of hypothesis we have one here which many are ignoring because the testing results do not fit in with their view point.
"So a scientist who is also a top chess player would NOT say we should simply assume chess is a draw--what he would say is you can make a likely hypothesis that chess is a draw and test the hypothesis."
There is no chance any scientist with even an undergraduate education in science would say that. It isn't an empirical question.
In any event, you need to get back to the previous topic and try to figure that out before we move ahead.
"Speaking of hypothesis we have one here which many are ignoring because the testing results do not fit in with their view point."
Again, whether or not chess is a draw is not an empirical question that is subject to hypothesis formation and testing. This is really basic science.
There is no way to solve the empirical question "Is chess a draw?" because we will never have a 32 piece table base.
However there is a ton of evidence pointing to the same thing. This evidence can be discounted by those who wish to discount it but it is there.
The question of this topic is not can chess be solved? The question asks for opinions and one can have a very informed opinion. To say that I am stupid when I say how certain I am that chess is a draw is unkind and not rational. To say I have no right to have such an extreme opinion is also unkind and not rational. Only I know my own chess experience and the patterns I see re chess are my own patterns.
It is unfortunate that there are no grandmasters in this thread. I am outnumbered.
"There is no way to solve the empirical question "Is chess a draw?" because we will never have a 32 piece table base."
1) "Is chess a draw?" is not an empirical question. It is a mathematical question.
2) There is no proof of which I am aware that answering the question requires a 32 piece table base. That has been pointed out again and again on this thread.
"However there is a ton of evidence pointing to the same thing. This evidence can be discounted by those who wish to discount it but it is there."
When you are even asked to come up with a coherent argument for your evidence pointing to a draw, you have yet to make an argument, coherent or otherwise. It might be there but you don't even know what it might look like.
"The question of this topic is not can chess be solved?"
No, it's not. Which is why your 32 piece tablebase requirement two sentences prior is not right.
"The question asks for opinions and one can have a very informed opinion."
You can't even make a coherent argument when I am trying to lead you to it, give you hints and prods, give you examples of how to make such a responsive argument, etc, etc.. And we have 83 pages of nonsense.
"To say that I am stupid"
I didn't say that but you keep accusing people of uncivil behavior toward you. It is a really awful debating topic. I judge debates at many different levels and have for many years. The uncivil conduct here is clearly yours. You routinely ignore points and entire posts. You try distractions and deflections and swing back to the same points dozens upon dozens of times. Anybody judging your debate would annihilate you on civility.
" To say I have no right to have such an extreme opinion is also unkind and not rational."
Nobody has said anything remotely like that. You can believe in the Easter Bunny for all I care. But if you are going to argue for the existence of the Easter Bunny, there are some minimal standards for making that argument.
"It is unfortunate that there are no grandmasters in this thread."
Do you think I would care if there was a grandmaster on this thread? If Bobby Fischer was here would I care about his opinion? Do you think that Bobby Fischer's opinion on this would move me at all?
draw?
White sure wins more often from that spot than black does, but obviously the outcome in God's book is unknown.
if I were playing God and had the white pieces in the above position and He offered a draw --iwould consider accepting as i know that position is a draw and God probably would not make a mistake.
Hugh (C.H.O'D) Alexander, a great lover of the Dutch Opening, once said that if God played God in the Dutch, White would win. But he said it was good enough for the rest of us.
That's more or less my approach to chess; there's perfect play (which should lead to a draw), and there's what we play, which is good enough.
Make this all simple.
Grab Winboard make Houdini Face Houdini with only Pawns.
Best Play From Both Sides No Matter What Is A Draw.
(Add In Loads Of Other Pieces - Starts to get a little more complicated!)
But here goes! (Generally: White works on getting more advantages for a win - Black works on getting less disadvantages for a draw) [Equalization]
White And Black Are Equal.
White Attacks. (Goes First) (Advantages)
Black Defends. (Goes Second) (No Disadvantages)
You get the general idea.
Here is a PGN of Houdini1.5a VS Houdini1.5a (King + Pawns Only) (Starting Position).
Performance Book Enabled:
Performance Book Disabled:
Clearly a difference.
But as you can see, When Logic Is involved we can see logically through the calculator that It would be Tit for Tat!
Black And White = Equal.
White And Black = Equal.
Conclusion: Perfect Play With Both Sides In Chess Results In A Draw!
Or a Win for white. If you look at the so called evidence of Billions of games being played you cannot discount the fact that in the White Opening variations there are more games won than those of black. In fact if you look closely among top GM's Opening repertoire they have more wins handling the white pieces than with black.
It would be interesting to have a lot more testing of chess engine vs chess engine with both engines equal and very strong.
You know I have had 2nd thoughts on that one position what I would do if I had White and was playing God and God offered a draw.
I would think: Why is the Almighty offering me a draw? He must think He is losing--so I would not accept the draw.
It would be interesting to have a lot more testing of chess engine vs chess engine with both engines equal and very strong.
You know I have had 2nd thoughts on that one position what I would do if I had White and was playing God and God offered a draw.
I would think: Why is the Almighty offering me a draw? He must think He is losing--so I would not accept the draw.
You do realize there are things even God can not do?
God can do the impossible.
But God can not lie.
God can lie but he picks never to do so. So he can not lie, while still being able to do the impossible. (Anything he wants).
So basically, If God Played God At Chess. It Would Be A Draw. God could not beat himself!
(God Vs God) (DRAW) How can something beat itself? Logically It Can't.
Not If Perfection Is Involved.
So God would either have to will for something wacky to happen and bend the rules of Logic or something.
Or Logically It is Impossible for any other way to exist, known to man or machine.
Basically, God can do anything even the impossible!
But since we can not understand the impossible, Logically we have to conclude LOGICALLY that Best Play From Both Sides Even If God was Playing Himself is a draw!
With correct play Black is Winning because White is in zugzwang!
What you gain in one area you lose in another.
White gains a tempo but loses a defense.
Black loses a tempo but gains a defense.
An Eye For An Eye Is The Game Of Chess! (When Played Logically Perfectly)
Love can over-ride anything.
Love beats all.
Jesus Christ Is Lord.
Jesus Christ Is Love.
What do I mean?
If Love Played Love In A Game Of Chess (If Jesus Faced Jesus)
Unless Jesus wanted otherwise, Love facing Love in a game of Chess would be a draw! Love can't beat Love o.0 Yet Love Can Do The Impossible.
" RisingGrounds wrote:
You do realize there are things even God can not do?
God can do the impossible.
But God can not lie.
God can lie but he picks never to do so. So he can not lie, while still being able to do the impossible. (Anything he wants).
So basically, If God Played God At Chess. It Would Be A Draw. God could not beat himself!"
+1
Yes God cannot lie!
Now the one who has a PhD (or says so) says that the PhD means nothing, but bets I wouldn't have one, and in addition, that 2 PhD would be odd. Funny logic. It is not me who tries to prove something here.
About the discussion: There are two parties who approach the problem (chess: draw or not) from different angles, both being scientifically valid. But some folks from the 'mathematical side' ('we will know for sure when we have a 32 piece tablebase, but before that we know nothing') deny the justification of the other approach. Ponz11 and others deals with (not mathematically measurable) likelihoods that are based on chess theory and practice of strong players, and on the fact that there have neither been found contradictions in the arguments (chess theory), nor recent examples in chess practice . The change in the evaluation of some endgame positions due to engine analysis is not (yet?) severe in this context, since chess practice, both of human and computers, rarely reached such positions.
Science is rarely based on absolute truth, it builds theories that decsribe a field in a sufficiently simple (but not trivial) way. As soon as new ('surprising') experience in a field is gathered, a theory will be changed. That time has not yet come for the chess theory . The question for this threat has been answered affirmatively so far by the overwhelming majority of Grandmasters.
As long that the first group does not accept that what Ponz111 states is science (the 'percentage ideology' being an unnecessary ingredient that I find doubtful: percentages shall not be used when things cannot be measured), there will be no progress here.
"Now the one who has a PhD (or says so) says that the PhD means nothing"
Read just a tad harder.
The rest of this is the same stuff that Ponz has been spouting forever - we don't need some absolute scientific proof, what we need is something else like a consensus truth. Who cares what GM's may or may not believe? GM's don't get to be oracles of mathematical truth anymore than mathematicians do.
Your summary that science is built on supposition doesn't apply here. Sometimes science needs an assumption or something likely to be true to build further results or to0 explain some real world phenomenon. There is no serious scientist in the whole world who would say that we should simply assume that chess is a draw until proven otherwise. There is simply no need for that result and nothing we would do with it if we had it. It wouldn't even explain anything.
" percentages shall not be used when things cannot be measured"
This isn't true, btw. Using percentages to express belief is called "subjective probability" and it is a widely used scientific tool. Perhaps the most influential single book ever is economics (Theory of games and economic behavior) discusses this at length. The field has even been axiomatized.