LOL i think tygxc downvoted u too @International.
btw, the terminology "solved" generally implies a proof of the mathematical variety.
What will happen if chess got solved?
Sort:
Jul 17, 2024
0
#303
tygxc wrote:
@336
"How are u so sure?"
WC33/final, World Championship 33 Final, human + engines, average 5 days / move:
112 draws out of 112 games and 5 different paths to the draw in average 39 moves.
It is logical: white has the initiative, an advantage of +1 tempo.
We know from gambits 1 pawn = 3 tempi. +1 pawn is enough to win: queen it.
+1 tempo is not enough to win: you cannot queen a tempo.
After the first white move white is up 1 tempo to 0.
After the 11th white move white is up 11 tempi to 10.
The initiative evaporates as the +1 tempo gets diluted.
Wow, draws by engines. how impressive.
Remind us since when singular games were proof?
Aso making up a value from a percieved tempo advantage isnt logical. logic is deduction directly from the rules of play, and nothing else.
Calling feelings and general rules of thumb "logic" is like calling a playground rule a legal standard.
it isnt even mathematically proven that chess isnt a winning position for black.
Of course, tygxc, you being the sort to reject logic, you dont even bother addressing that. in fact, it's further evidence of your delusion.
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
LOL i think tygxc downvoted u too @International.
btw, the terminology "solved" generally implies a proof of the mathematical variety.
Oh, maybe it's because I conceded that chess wasn't solved as far as absolute proof is concerned. I guess that earned me a downvote. I never actually meant to imply that chess was already solved, or that we had absolute, 100% proof that it is a draw. I merely meant to suggest that we are justified in saying, in a general sense, that chess is drawn. Not because we have mathematical proof, but because the observational evidence very strongly supports it. So I assert that chess is drawn with conviction. But if the argument is that chess is already solved, or that we know in absolute terms that it's drawn, I am afraid I cannot back up such a claim.
Jul 17, 2024
0
#309
International-Grandpatzer wrote:
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.
"Do we have absolute, undeniable proof that chess is drawn? Perhaps not."
Its not 'perhaps'.
We don't. Nobody does.
There is no such proof.
You made a mistake saying 'perhaps' IG.
Its not 'perhaps'. Its 'definitely not'.
-------------------------------------------------
"That is, the closer to perfect that both sides play, the greater the likelihood of a draw"
Engines of the same strength playing each other proves nothing.
Its now developed that engines beat grandmasters who often draw with each other. Who have indoctrinated themselves with similiar 'studies and knowledge'
--------------------------------
You've completely missed the point IG.
And by saying 'highly' three times before 'unlikely' you've ignored what happens when there's a mismatch.
You've also ignored the fact that engines can't even get positions right that humans can.
I'll post one up now - so that you might better understand the fallibility of the engines you want to argue are getting 'closer to perfection' ...
Jul 17, 2024
0
#310
Try putting this one on analysis ...
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/positions-engines-get-wrong--please-contribute?page=5#comment-46317734
How about the engine doesn't think this is a draw?
To see that analysis -
hit this link https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/positions-engines-get-wrong--please-contribute?page=5#comment-46317734and then hit the symbol at bottom left with the three horizontal bars.
Yes its a Crazy Position - but why doesn't the engine know its a draw?
Because its Fallible.
tygxc then pathetically tries to claim that 'adding a human GM' would 'correct' this.
It doesn't. It can't. Because what it means is that 'engine is very strong' is undermined by its failure to accurately assess a simple position.
Engines are not 'optimal'.
They are not playing each other with 'optimal play'.
There's no 'magic arbitration' at 5 days per move.
------------------------------------------------------------
What is tygxc's motivation to make exaggerated claims?
Is it this?
From GM Evgeny Sveshnikov:
' "He described his general understanding of the game in the following, also very strong statement:
"Chess is an exact mathematical problem. The solution comes from two sides: the opening and the endgame. The middlegame does not exist. The middlegame is a well-studied opening. An opening should result in an endgame.... Give me five years, good assistants and modern computers, and I will trace all variations from the opening towards tablebases and 'close' chess. I feel that power."
Sveshnikov 'feels power' so it must be so?
------------------------------------
Pasted from here: https://www.chess.com/news/view/evgeny-sveshnikov-1950-2021which in turn is from here:
https://e3e5.com/article.php?id=1467But that's in Russian.
And its Amazing how easy it was to translate that into English.
I didn't have to copy paste. And I didn't even have to click 'Select all' either (not sure that option was there anyway)
Just Right click the page and scroll down a bit in the right click options.
and click 'Translate into English'
and the whole page morphs into English.
Yes Chrome is powerful. Not perfect though.
playerafar wrote:
International-Grandpatzer wrote:
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.
"Do we have absolute, undeniable proof that chess is drawn? Perhaps not."
Its not 'perhaps'.
We don't. Nobody does.
There is no such proof.
You made a mistake saying 'perhaps' IG.
Its not 'perhaps'. Its 'definitely not'.
-------------------------------------------------
"That is, the closer to perfect that both sides play, the greater the likelihood of a draw"
Engines of the same strength playing each other proves nothing.
Its now developed that engines beat grandmasters who often draw with each other. Who have indoctrinated themselves with similiar 'studies and knowledge'
--------------------------------
You've completely missed the point IG.
And by saying 'highly' three times before 'unlikely' you've ignored what happens when there's a mismatch.
You've also ignored the fact that engines can't even get positions right that humans can.
I'll post one up now - so that you might better understand the fallibility of the engines you want to argue are getting 'closer to perfection' ...
You take exception to my use of "perhaps"? Give me a break. Well In case you don't know, "perhaps not", in the particular context in which I used the phrase, simply indicates a concession. Nothing more.
As for the rest of your comment, I believe you are overstating your case. Yes, engines beat grandmasters who draw with each other - but it's not as though the reason for any particular loss is beyond our level of understanding.
And I never said chess engines were yet perfect, so your little illustration is completely meaningless to me.
And yes, chess engines, while not yet perfect, are in fact getting closer and closer to perfect play. That's sort of how it works. And guess what? As they have gotten better, draws between engines have become more and more of a certainty. That, along with other observations, is why someone is completely justified in believing that chess is drawn.
The WC33/final, World Championship 33 Final is not at 113 draws out of 113 games.
Jul 18, 2024
0
#315
Why is the forum post owner just spamming pointless comments instead of contributing to his own thread? And why is he asking questions like "Huh?" when the comments themselves explain everything?
Jul 18, 2024
0
#316
@tygxc
"what would happen to competitive chess?" ++ It would gradually die out, like competitive checkers.
"Will there be world champions anymore?" ++ Maybe for blitz only. Carlsen already now refrains from the classical chess world championship and won world championship matches against Karjakin and Caruana by going into rapid tiebreakers.
"Will every game played be a draw?" ++ Not necessarily. Humans will have difficulty memorising the solution. Connect Four is strongly solved to be a draw, and the solution is easy to memorise, but it is still played casually and the first player does not always win, as he should.
It will not die out. Nothing will happen. Even if it gets solved for every possible move, it won't stop people from making moves on their own and playing their own games. After all... that's what a game is.
Jul 18, 2024
0
#317
International-Grandpatzer wrote:
You take exception to my use of "perhaps"? Give me a break. Well In case you don't know, "perhaps not", in the particular context in which I used the phrase, simply indicates a concession. Nothing more.
As for the rest of your comment, I believe you are overstating your case. Yes, engines beat grandmasters who draw with each other - but it's not as though the reason for any particular loss is beyond our level of understanding.
And I never said chess engines were yet perfect, so your little illustration is completely meaningless to me.
And yes, chess engines, while not yet perfect, are in fact getting closer and closer to perfect play. That's sort of how it works. And guess what? As they have gotten better, draws between engines have become more and more of a certainty. That, along with other observations, is why someone is completely justified in believing that chess is drawn.
you are missing a lot of context.
a) nobody is arguing against the belief that chess is a draw. they are merely pointing out the lack of mathematical proof of it. playerafar might be mixed up in the context too and not understand your position properly.
b) you know the high level computers tygxc cites? tygxc claims that they are literally perfect. you, being a reasonable person, would not interpret tygxc's surface level statements as such, but that is literally what tygxc has clarified on other forums. playerafar is addressing with that context in mind.
Jul 18, 2024
0
#318
"You take exception to my use of "perhaps"?"
IG - you're trying to say we have 'absolute,undeniable' proof.
We don't.
You're implying a 'possibility' that doesn't exist.
'take exception' ?
I don't think that's fooling anybody.
Its your post not mine.
There is no proof of chess being a draw.
None.
Better to give yourself a break than claim something you know to be false.
Jul 18, 2024
0
#319
International-Grandpatzer wrote:
MEGACHE3SE wrote:
LOL i think tygxc downvoted u too @International.
btw, the terminology "solved" generally implies a proof of the mathematical variety.
Oh, maybe it's because I conceded that chess wasn't solved as far as absolute proof is concerned. I guess that earned me a downvote. I never actually meant to imply that chess was already solved, or that we had absolute, 100% proof that it is a draw. I merely meant to suggest that we are justified in saying, in a general sense, that chess is drawn. Not because we have mathematical proof, but because the observational evidence very strongly supports it. So I assert that chess is drawn with conviction. But if the argument is that chess is already solved, or that we know in absolute terms that it's drawn, I am afraid I cannot back up such a claim.
@playerafar i think u got homeboy wrong.
Jul 18, 2024
0
#320
"And yes, chess engines, while not yet perfect, are in fact getting closer and closer to perfect play. That's sort of how it works. And guess what? As they have gotten better, draws between engines have become more and more of a certainty. That, along with other observations, is why someone is completely justified in believing that chess is drawn."
Another falsehood.
'completely justified'.
Also - you've completely missed the point that stronger engines beat weaker ones.
You haven't addressed that at all.
Nor the fallibility of engines in getting some positions completely wrong.
------------------
But it looks like tygxc has finally found an ally.
Someone trying to equate 'likely' with 'certain'.
------------------------------
Regarding Sveshnikov and him feeling 'power' to solve chess in five years -
I discovered in my research on him that apparently he was anti-vaxx and anti-mask.
Guess what killed him?
That's right. Covid.
These posts of mine addressed to everyone in the forum.
I have no intention of indulging IG in his desire for verbal tennis.
So no more addressing him in the first person.
He can 'take exception' and work the semantics if he chooses -
but prediction - he won't be able to compete with Optimissed at trolling.
@336
"How are u so sure?"
WC33/final, World Championship 33 Final, human + engines, average 5 days / move:
112 draws out of 112 games and 5 different paths to the draw in average 39 moves.
It is logical: white has the initiative, an advantage of +1 tempo.
We know from gambits 1 pawn = 3 tempi. +1 pawn is enough to win: queen it.
+1 tempo is not enough to win: you cannot queen a tempo.
After the first white move white is up 1 tempo to 0.
After the 11th white move white is up 11 tempi to 10.
The initiative evaporates as the +1 tempo gets diluted.