this is like asking "am I going to get a girlfriend"? well not in a 100 years. same with chess. it's not going to be solved for another 100 years
What will happen if chess got solved?
Sort:
Jul 15, 2024
0
#283
nov04-inactive wrote:
this is like asking "am I going to get a girlfriend"? well not in a 100 years. same with chess. it's not going to be solved for another 100 years
things can change in 100 years.
playerafar wrote:
International-Grandpatzer wrote:
True, there is no "proof" that chess is a draw. But at the same time, there is no "proof" of a big bang theory. That is, there is nothing that comes right out and declares it absolutely. Yet, to suggest otherwise is to believe something that goes against virtually every observable reality about spacetime and relativity. In much the same way, we can't say, "aha, chess is solved, and white forces a draw in x amount of moves". But we can clearly observe that the closer and closer to perfect both sides play, the probability of the game being drawn increases at the same rate. We observe what happens when chess engines, which can calculate millions and millions of variations per second, play one another. In addition, we observe the sheer number of drawing resources that both sides have from the outset - the only way one side ever wins is when the other side makes a mistake. And even then, there are often ways to save the game. It really is beyond thought that the game could be anything but drawn.
IG - hi.
There is actually much much proof of the Big Bang.
Its called red shift.
Proof of a very massive explosion a long time ago.
If you don't understand red shift then you won't see it as proof.
But its inescapable.
To understand red shift properly -
you have to understand the most basic energy equation.
Which is not E=m(c^2) but rather is wavelength x frequency = c (the speed of light).
And you also need to understand about Doppler effects named after the great Austrian scientist Christian Doppler.
And you need to understand a bit about spectral signatures too.
----------------------------
Red shift all over the cosmos is gigantic proof of a gigantic Big Bang.
Its more than a theory.
The actual mistake that is commonly made is to conclude from there that the Big Bang is 'the universe'.
Which doesn't follow.
People perhaps sense that so that's why so many tend to reject the Big Bang.
Since it will never be proven whether the universe is infinite or finite (whether in size or mass or age) then claims that the Big Bang is 'the universe' become silly.
People do try to claim a universe finite in age based on 'Entropy' arguments including those put out by Eddington. But multiple big bangs in past present and future elsewhere and elsewhen - knock that right out.
-----------------------------------------------
In fairness - when scientists refer to the Big Bang as 'universe' they could be abbreviating from 'observable universe'.
So when they mistakenly say 'universe is expanding' that refers to the Big Bang which is obviously expanding. Known because of the enormous red shift evidence of galaxies all over the place moving away from each other.
But there's no way to prove there aren't an infinite number of other Big Bangs out there in other places - happening in the past and present - and to happen elsewhere in the future too.
--------------------------------------
Why do people want to believe 'There can be Only One' .... ?
Because of mankind's narcissism.
Its related to the motivations of geocentrism - although a different thing.
And wanting there to be Only One is a powerful psychological thing and means that movies like Highlander make a lot of money.
I am not suggesting the possibility that the known, observable universe is timeless and eternal. I said very clearly that the big bang is proven. It doesn't matter that we weren't there to witness it happen. We can absolutely know things, beyond all doubt, based on observation and empirical testing. And when we apply those same standards to chess, it is obvious that chess is a draw. People act as if you must have some kind of smoking gun in order to know anything. And that is just not true.
After all, you cannot prove that you didn't spring into existence ten minutes ago, with all your memories artificially formed and implanted into you. You cannot prove that conscious self-awareness exists in other people. You cannot prove that you are not some lonely god who created a fake world with fake people for only itself, and that after your lifetime is over, you reawaken to create another world with another set of circumstances to experience. Prove otherwise. You can't.
But you can know that such things are nonsense. Why? Observation and reason.
And observation and reason says that chess is drawn.
International-Grandpatzer wrote:
I am not suggesting the possibility that the known, observable universe is timeless and eternal. I said very clearly that the big bang is proven. My point is that we know things based on observation and empirical testing, and when we apply those same standards to chess, it is obvious that chess is a draw. People act as if you must have some kind of smoking gun/mathematical formula in order to know anything. And that is just not true. If that were the case, you cannot prove that you didn't spring into existence ten minutes ago, with all your memories artificially formed and implanted into you. You cannot prove that conscious self-awareness exists in other people. You cannot prove that you are not some lonely god who created a fake world for only itself, and that after your lifetime is over, you reawaken to create another world with another set of circumstances to experience. Prove otherwise. You can't.
But you can know that such things are nonsense. Why? Observation and reason.
And observation and reason says that chess is drawn.
Your example choice is unfortunate, given that human beings could not and did not use their own personal "observation and reason" to formulate the Big Bang Theory. It was built over thousands of years as mankind advanced, by countless contributors. There has only been observation of chess and the idea of it being a forced draw, not any empirical testing of note to this point in its history.
Observation and reason say that chess is probably a draw, but that it's not proven and chess is not solved. The fact that Alpha Zero shocked the entire chess world and outplayed the top engines only a few years ago with 4 hours of machine learning should be ample evidence that mankind and its henchmen engines are nowhere near reaching perfect play. Let that sink in. A computer that was only shown the rules of the game and asked to play itself for 4 hours eclipsed the entire history of chess played by people like you...and that machine has since been surpassed, and top engines continue to surpass each other with each new release.
Jul 16, 2024
0
#288
DiogenesDue wrote:
International-Grandpatzer wrote:
I am not suggesting the possibility that the known, observable universe is timeless and eternal. I said very clearly that the big bang is proven. My point is that we know things based on observation and empirical testing, and when we apply those same standards to chess, it is obvious that chess is a draw. People act as if you must have some kind of smoking gun/mathematical formula in order to know anything. And that is just not true. If that were the case, you cannot prove that you didn't spring into existence ten minutes ago, with all your memories artificially formed and implanted into you. You cannot prove that conscious self-awareness exists in other people. You cannot prove that you are not some lonely god who created a fake world for only itself, and that after your lifetime is over, you reawaken to create another world with another set of circumstances to experience. Prove otherwise. You can't.
But you can know that such things are nonsense. Why? Observation and reason.
And observation and reason says that chess is drawn.
Your example choice is unfortunate, given that human beings could not and did not use their own personal "observation and reason" to formulate the Big Bang Theory. It was built over thousands of years as mankind advanced, by countless contributors. There has only been observation of chess and the idea of it being a forced draw, not any empirical testing of note to this point in its history.
Observation and reason say that chess is probably a draw, but that it's not proven and chess is not solved. The fact that Alpha Zero shocked the entire chess world and outplayed the top engines only a few years ago with 4 hours of machine learning should be ample evidence that mankind and its henchmen engines are nowhere near reaching perfect play. Let that sink in. A computer that was only shown the rules of the game and asked to play itself for 4 hours eclipsed the entire history of chess played by people like you...and that machine has since been surpassed, and top engines continue to surpass each other with each new release.
Ugh
VossieYT wrote:
Ugh
The OP's disease is spreading, it seems. Try using words and phrases longer than 3 letters.
Jul 16, 2024
0
#290
@International-Grandpatzer
you fasely conflate existential levels of proof with the axiomatic type of proof required in games.
Jul 16, 2024
0
#293
International-Grandpatzer wrote:
playerafar wrote:
International-Grandpatzer wrote:
True, there is no "proof" that chess is a draw. But at the same time, there is no "proof" of a big bang theory. That is, there is nothing that comes right out and declares it absolutely. Yet, to suggest otherwise is to believe something that goes against virtually every observable reality about spacetime and relativity. In much the same way, we can't say, "aha, chess is solved, and white forces a draw in x amount of moves". But we can clearly observe that the closer and closer to perfect both sides play, the probability of the game being drawn increases at the same rate. We observe what happens when chess engines, which can calculate millions and millions of variations per second, play one another. In addition, we observe the sheer number of drawing resources that both sides have from the outset - the only way one side ever wins is when the other side makes a mistake. And even then, there are often ways to save the game. It really is beyond thought that the game could be anything but drawn.
IG - hi.
There is actually much much proof of the Big Bang.
Its called red shift.
Proof of a very massive explosion a long time ago.
If you don't understand red shift then you won't see it as proof.
But its inescapable.
To understand red shift properly -
you have to understand the most basic energy equation.
Which is not E=m(c^2) but rather is wavelength x frequency = c (the speed of light).
And you also need to understand about Doppler effects named after the great Austrian scientist Christian Doppler.
And you need to understand a bit about spectral signatures too.
----------------------------
Red shift all over the cosmos is gigantic proof of a gigantic Big Bang.
Its more than a theory.
The actual mistake that is commonly made is to conclude from there that the Big Bang is 'the universe'.
Which doesn't follow.
People perhaps sense that so that's why so many tend to reject the Big Bang.
Since it will never be proven whether the universe is infinite or finite (whether in size or mass or age) then claims that the Big Bang is 'the universe' become silly.
People do try to claim a universe finite in age based on 'Entropy' arguments including those put out by Eddington. But multiple big bangs in past present and future elsewhere and elsewhen - knock that right out.
-----------------------------------------------
In fairness - when scientists refer to the Big Bang as 'universe' they could be abbreviating from 'observable universe'.
So when they mistakenly say 'universe is expanding' that refers to the Big Bang which is obviously expanding. Known because of the enormous red shift evidence of galaxies all over the place moving away from each other.
But there's no way to prove there aren't an infinite number of other Big Bangs out there in other places - happening in the past and present - and to happen elsewhere in the future too.
--------------------------------------
Why do people want to believe 'There can be Only One' .... ?
Because of mankind's narcissism.
Its related to the motivations of geocentrism - although a different thing.
And wanting there to be Only One is a powerful psychological thing and means that movies like Highlander make a lot of money.
I am not suggesting the possibility that the known, observable universe is timeless and eternal. I said very clearly that the big bang is proven. It doesn't matter that we weren't there to witness it happen. We can absolutely know things, beyond all doubt, based on observation and empirical testing. And when we apply those same standards to chess, it is obvious that chess is a draw. People act as if you must have some kind of smoking gun in order to know anything. And that is just not true.
After all, you cannot prove that you didn't spring into existence ten minutes ago, with all your memories artificially formed and implanted into you. You cannot prove that conscious self-awareness exists in other people. You cannot prove that you are not some lonely god who created a fake world with fake people for only itself, and that after your lifetime is over, you reawaken to create another world with another set of circumstances to experience. Prove otherwise. You can't.
But you can know that such things are nonsense. Why? Observation and reason.
And observation and reason says that chess is drawn.
When I said 'you' regarding proof of the Big Bang I was referring to 'general figurative you'. Which you might have guessed already.
No big deal.
------------------
Regarding practicalities of chess:
This thinking:
'You won't win unless your opponent makes a big enough mistake which means he has to make at least one mistake for you to win"
That thinking could lead players to think 'chess is a draw if play on both sides is best or 'optimal' or 'nobody makes a mistake' '.
But there are flaws in that second statement.
Including the fact that games are won on the clock.
And the major possbility or probability that a perfect game has never been played on both sides.
Adding:
'For players to get a skilled opponent to make big enough mistakes to win a player must play well enough or intensely enough or efficiently enough to pressure the opponent into those big enough mistakes. Or to fall on the clock.'
Which is a practicality for good players -
But these practicalites which become embedded into good play for good players - do not mean that 'chess is not proven to be a draw' is some kind of Solipsism like saying 'how do we prove we're even here?'
Its not like that.
GM's have a higher percentage of draws than weaker players.
Advanced engines playing themselves getting five days per move get a very big percentage of draws - even 100% at times.
But that is side-stepping the fact that the engines advance and would beat the engines of yesteryear.
And by extrapolation - would lose to engines of FutureYear.
------------------------------------------
And that's usually not bothered with - playing older engines against much more advanced present day engines.
Do they even bother keeping all the old software?
How do you prove that engines of ten years from now given 20 days per move wouldn't beat today's engines then getting 5 days per move at that time?
--------------------------------------------------
See what's happening IG?
Phony arbitration around '5 days per move' or 'strong engines' isn't the same as 'resisting Solipsism'.
Making such equivalencies should be avoided - in a truly intellectual discussion of these subjects.
No I'm not saying you're making such equivalencies ...
but tygxc ...(and there's O too - wanting to work the semantics in his trolling pseudo-intellectual way)
@320
"observation and reason says that chess is drawn"
++ Yes.
scarysacrifice wrote:
@5 four in a row isn't solved draw, it's always a guaranteed win for red (or the first player). Even if no one can memorize, the first player has a clear advantage that is way stronger than white in chess.
true
@334
Connect Four and Losing Chess are first player wins.
Checkers, Nine Men's Morris, and Chess are draws.
Jul 16, 2024
0
#298
tygxc wrote:
@320
"observation and reason says that chess is drawn"
++ Yes.
ah yes, take what you want to hear out of context and ignore the basic mathematical principles presented elsewhere that directly contradict that. the tygxc way.
chess is not solved. it is not ultra-weakly solved, it is not weakly solved, and it definitely isnt strongly solved. with present technology it would take over a century to weakly/ultra weakly solve chess and it is unknown whether it will even be possible to strongly solve chess by humanity at this time.
it is only EXTREMELY LIKELY that chess is a draw.
these are objective facts that tygxc ignores because not only does he not understand the difference between casual belief and mathematical rigor, he also rejects the possibility entirely. (this is not exaggeration, tygxc has literally tried to use the merriam webster definition of "proof").
and so, instead of addressing the irrefutable evidence, tygxc downvotes posts he doesnt like and tries to pretend to be a source of valid information to new posters unfamiliar to his BS.
Do we have absolute, undeniable proof that chess is drawn? Perhaps not. But based on what we know and observe, we can say beyond all reasonable doubt that chess is drawn. Even when some groundbreaking AI comes along and demonstrates that human chess understanding and chess engines are still far from perfect, a certain constant remains throughout, and can always be observed. That is, the closer to perfect that both sides play, the greater the likelihood of a draw. An AI that is strong enough to beat Stockfish will still draw when playing an AI of equal strength. This constant can be observed throughout.
So to suggest that sophistication will one day reach a point where a winning line is found is nothing but pure, baseless speculation. Not to mention, it goes against something else that we observe about chess. Namely, that drawing resources are literally everywhere. For white to put black in zugzwang from the first move, it would have to be a forced line that bypasses every possible line of defense for black - despite the fact that black can castle to either side and has all it's pieces. It's ridiculous. The chances are 1 in a million.
A proven draw? That depends on your definition of "proven". Let's just say it is highly, highly, highly unlikely that chess is anything other than drawn.
Fascinating.
s
s