Will computers ever solve chess? - Chess Forums - Page 181

USArmyParatrooper

Mar 20, 2018

0

#3601

pawn8888 wrote:

Perhaps a good way to see if chess is a draw would be to play with 6 squares instead of 8. Take away a bishop and knight from both sides and it would still be even. Since there are only 36 squares instead of 64, it would be easier to solve. Whatever the outcome it would apply to the 64 square game as well - maybe it would be fun to play and easier.

I suspect the number of possible game variations would still surpass the capabilities of current technology. And really in that case you’ve completely changed the dynamics of the game. You can’t extrapolate one result from the other.

ponz111

Mar 20, 2018

0

#3602

petrip wrote:

ponz111 wrote:

Then suppose i said that this new game is a win for White if neither side makes an error...

Some would make the argument that i could not know the game is a win for White because the game has not been solved with a 31 piece table base.

To know and to prove means different things in different context. Evidence you showed would enough to send someone in jail as in real word total confidence is no possible

But solving a game is mathematical term and maths is self contained and there 'to solve' really means solving, no amounts statistical evidence makes a proof of anything. Yes, every one agrees that this probable outcome, it just has not been proven.

Did i say that in the senario that the particular game mentioned would be solved?? To answer my own question...i DID NOT say the particular game mentioned was "solved"!

The hypothetical was to show the hang up some people have that they seem to think a game has to be "solved" for someone to know the outcome of the game.

Suppose i changed to a new game which would be just like chess but that Black would be minus a queen and both rooks...Any body who knows just a little about chess would know that the natural result of that game would be a win for White.

Now some would argue "we do not know the theoretical result of such a game so you cannot prove the game is a win for White."

But what does "theoretical" mean? Looking "theoretical" up in the dictionary here is what I get: "theoretical" Something theoretical is concerned with theories and hypothesis--it's not necessarily based on real life or meant to apply to real life.

So, in that senario, i would say the game will naturally end in a win for White if both sides played without making a mistake. And this is true regardless if the game is or is not theoretically proved to be a win for White.

So those insisting on theoretical proof to know that game is a win for White are somewhere out in some not real life scene.

I prefer real life

ponz111

Mar 20, 2018

0

#3603

petrip wrote:

ponz111 wrote:

Then suppose i said that this new game is a win for White if neither side makes an error...

Some would make the argument that i could not know the game is a win for White because the game has not been solved with a 31 piece table base.

To know and to prove means different things in different context. Evidence you showed would enough to send someone in jail as in real word total confidence is no possible

But solving a game is mathematical term and maths is self contained and there 'to solve' really means solving, no amounts statistical evidence makes a proof of anything. Yes, every one agrees that this probable outcome, it just has not been proven.

When i was age 15, my employment was as Chess Instructor for the City of Decatur Illinois. As part of my employment i played hundreds of simultaneous situations--usually against 10 to 12 players at once.

I won more than 99.9% of those games. There were 2 or 3 games [out of thousands of games] where i blundered and lost my queen for little or no compensation. However i did not resign--played on and won those games!?

ponz111

Mar 20, 2018

0

#3604

USArmyParatrooper wrote:

ponz111 wrote:

Here is another piece of evidence. It is the Ad hominem attacks on me by some players. This indicates a fundamental lack of reasoning ability.

Folks, things like this is what ponz111 considers “evidence“ that chess is likely a draw.

It is very slight evidence--it is evidence that some people who were attacking me were disengenuous and thus were not open to a real debate or conversation and were using a fallacious argument. It is a minor logical fallacy [i think]

I remember some were stating [as part of their argument] that i had never attended college. This was repeated over and over again and i never replied if i had ever attended college? The truth is i am a college [4 year college] graduate.

This kind of stuff may feel good to those who do it but it really doess not help their arguments except in their own minds.

ponz111

Mar 20, 2018

0

#3605

USArmyParatrooper wrote:

s23bog wrote:

ponz111 escribió:

Another piece of evidence about chess being a draw is that the vast majority of grandmasters believe chess is a draw. [and they know something about chess even if some low rated players disparage those grandmasters and their knowledge.]

This is only one piece of evidence but when all the evidence is compiled--it is enough for me to conclude chess is a draw.

Is the belief of vast majorities of people convincing evidence that God exists?

Also, believing it is a draw is vastly different than claiming it has been proven. Gary Kasparov stated it has NOT been proven.

I also *believe* it is a draw.

But yes, even IF that were true it is an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

You are using "argumentum ad populum fallacy" incorrectly. It only applies if it is the SOLE argument for a statement. As you well know i have given many arguments for my statement that chesss is a draw if neither side makes a mistake.

edilio134

Mar 20, 2018

0

#3606

----->It is very slight evidence--it is evidence that some people who were attacking me were disengenuous and thus were not open to a real debate or conversation and were using a fallacious argument.

:-)

Curiously this happens to those who believe that chess is draw. You are in a large and qualified company.

ponz111

Mar 20, 2018

0

#3607

s23bog wrote:

ponz111 escribió:

Another piece of evidence about chess being a draw is that the vast majority of grandmasters believe chess is a draw. [and they know something about chess even if some low rated players disparage those grandmasters and their knowledge.]

This is only one piece of evidence but when all the evidence is compiled--it is enough for me to conclude chess is a draw.

Is the belief of vast majorities of people convincing evidence that God exists?

Yes, but they very much disagree with each other re what is "God".

However it is true that a lot of people can believe something that may not be true.

I cannot really respond well to what you mention as it is not allowed to discuss here on chess.com. Best to go to "Open Discussion" to discuss this?

ponz111

Mar 20, 2018

0

#3608

USArmyParatrooper wrote: ponz in blue

ponz111 wrote:

Here is another piece of evidence. It is the flawed thinking of some who state it cannot be determined that chess is a draw without solving chess.

One poster kept insisting that it is impossible to play a perfect game without chess being solved. i explained how this was not true but time after time he kept insisting he was correct and i was wrong on this particular subject.

And once again, this is NOT evidence that chess is likely a draw. This is your personal appraisal of people who disagree with you. In itself it is not enough evidence to prove anything but when one looks at a whole lot of circumstantial evidence that is a different story.

Suppose a man was found in the home of a man murdered. This in itself is not enough evidence that he did the murder. Now suppose blood of the victim was found on this man--these 2 things together would not be enough to convict him of murder.

then suppose there was a gun on the man which had been used by the murderer.

again not enough evidence to convict him of murder. But then he confesses to the murder--all the evidence together would probably be enough to convict him of murder

but any one piece of evidence would not be near enough to convict him of murder.

You’ve pretty much been throwing out every random thought in your head and labeling it “evidence.“ This is an Ad hominem attack. I DO NOT throw out every random thought in my head and label it as "evidence"

by the way look at the 2nd paragraph of this posting. That person i referred to was YOU.

So it was not a "random thought" thrown out. YOU helped to provide the evidence [so it was not a random thought]

Elroch

Mar 20, 2018

0

#3609

ponz111 wrote:

Elroch wrote: ponz in blue

ponz111 wrote:

Here is something else to consider...Suppose a new game was invented just like our chess except Black would start with no queen.

Then suppose i said that this new game is a win for White if neither side makes an error...

Some would make the argument that i could not know the game is a win for White because the game has not been solved with a 31 piece table base.

Not good enough: you need the 32 piece table base, which is over 100 times larger (and rather large for our observable universe). ok 32 piece table base is fine...[not sure why ?] maybe you could explain?

Because that covers all legal positions: I don't need to tell you it's the maximum number of pieces you can have on the board! Note that for a strong solution of chess, such a tablebase strictly speaking needs to cover piece combos like KQRRBBNNNNNNNNNN v KQRRBBBBBBBBBBNN. For a weak solution of chess (a pair of strategies each of which can be shown to achieve the optimal result) some combos may be avoidable. For example, it is not inconceivable that there is a perfect strategy that completely prevents the opponent queening, which greatly reduces the number of possible piece combos and positions to deal with.

Now suppose one million games would be played and the result that more than 95% of the games were won by White...now we would have some posters say that one million games is "nothing" compared to the super number of possible games played and so those one million games mean nothing

They would be entirely correct.

Think of it this way. Suppose someone told you there had been a million games played by 1600 rated players from a particular complex position with 55% score for white. Do you think this would exclude the possibility that black had a forced win by a brilliant resource that had been overlooked? the problem with this is that my hypothetical was not a complex position, i could beat God with such a position. [if he played fair and did not mess with my mind and if he existed]

I don't see your point. The initial position in chess is complex, and you need to deal with that one, and quadrillions (and more) of possible opening positions whatever you do.

You may say "but that's just weak players". The problem is that if there are possible chess players rated 4000 (as is possible, even likely) we are all very weak. my guess is the strongest possible rated engine would be about 3900 but this is beside your point. however your weak players argument has some merit i should have said someething like 1 billion games were played by players master level or above and 99.6% of the games ended in a win for White...

That would be a hint it would be difficult to ignore! The real situation is not so clear with white achieving a healthy plus score in the very strongest games. I suspect the edge is increasing with strength, but I have not made a statistical case that this is more than random variation around the "standard" white edge.

ponz111

Mar 20, 2018

0

#3610

Elroch wrote:

ponz111 wrote:

Elroch wrote: ponz in blue

ponz111 wrote:

Here is something else to consider...Suppose a new game was invented just like our chess except Black would start with no queen.

Then suppose i said that this new game is a win for White if neither side makes an error...

Some would make the argument that i could not know the game is a win for White because the game has not been solved with a 31 piece table base.

Not good enough: you need the 32 piece table base, which is over 100 times larger (and rather large for our observable universe). ok 32 piece table base is fine...[not sure why ?] maybe you could explain?

Because that covers all legal positions: I don't need to tell you it's the maximum number of pieces you can have on the board! Note that for a strong solution of chess, such a tablebase strictly speaking needs to cover piece combos like KQRRBBNNNNNNNNNN v KQRRBBBBBBBBBBNN. For a weak solution of chess (a pair of strategies each of which can be shown to achieve the optimal result) some combos may be avoidable. For example, it is not inconceivable that there is a perfect strategy that completely prevents the opponent queening, which greatly reduces the number of possible piece combos and positions to deal with.

Now suppose one million games would be played and the result that more than 95% of the games were won by White...now we would have some posters say that one million games is "nothing" compared to the super number of possible games played and so those one million games mean nothing

They would be entirely correct.

Think of it this way. Suppose someone told you there had been a million games played by 1600 rated players from a particular complex position with 55% score for white. Do you think this would exclude the possibility that black had a forced win by a brilliant resource that had been overlooked? the problem with this is that my hypothetical was not a complex position, i could beat God with such a position. [if he played fair and did not mess with my mind and if he existed]

I don't see your point. The initial position in chess is complex, and you need to deal with that one, and quadrillions (and more) of possible opening positions whatever you do.

You may say "but that's just weak players". The problem is that if there are possible chess players rated 4000 (as is possible, even likely) we are all very weak. my guess is the strongest possible rated engine would be about 3900 but this is beside your point. however your weak players argument has some merit i should have said someething like 1 billion games were played by players master level or above and 99.6% of the games ended in a win for White...

That would be a hint it would be difficult to ignore! The real situation is not so clear with white achieving a healthy plus score in the very strongest games. I suspect the edge is increasing with strength, but I have not made a statistical case that this is more than random variation around the "standard" white edge.

Would you consider the status of games in the current correspondence chess situation [for the highest ranking duals of machine and human] as part of your efforts to make a statistical case?

lfPatriotGames

Mar 20, 2018

0

#3611

ponz111 wrote:

lfPatriotGames wrote:

Dewey Defeats Truman. Knowing it's true is enough to pronounce it's true. Especially if you consider the vast majority of opinions and your own personal knowledge of the situation. All the circumstantial evidence is pretty convincing.

Anyone with just a little common sense knows in a very close political race sometimes the wrong person is announced as winning. This even happened with Bush.

Absolutely. That's because they didn't wait for all the evidence. Instead, they used all the available circumstantial evidence, which can be a LOT, and made up their mind. They knew who would win (or so they thought), and proclaimed the outcome. Sometimes all the circumstantial evidence leads to the wrong conclusion.

ponz111

Mar 20, 2018

0

#3612

Here is something some of the very highest duos of player and chess engine have told me. [Just because they told me this, in itself, does not make it true but it IS interesting.]

They are saying that some have given up opening the game [as White] with 1. e4. Why? because Black could respond with this variation which they claim has been investigated to a draw...

ponz111

Mar 20, 2018

0

#3613

lfPatriotGames wrote:

ponz111 wrote:

lfPatriotGames wrote:

Dewey Defeats Truman. Knowing it's true is enough to pronounce it's true. Especially if you consider the vast majority of opinions and your own personal knowledge of the situation. All the circumstantial evidence is pretty convincing.

Anyone with just a little common sense knows in a very close political race sometimes the wrong person is announced as winning. This even happened with Bush.

Absolutely. That's because they didn't wait for all the evidence. Instead, they used all the available circumstantial evidence, which can be a LOT, and made up their mind. They knew who would win (or so they thought), and proclaimed the outcome. Sometimes all the circumstantial evidence leads to the wrong conclusion.

Actually, i agree with your posting here.

When circumstantial evidence is being gathered it is best not to jump the gun and rely on such evidence until enough circumstantial evidence has been provided.

Elroch

Mar 20, 2018

0

#3614

I thought the Berlin defense had the best claim?

USArmyParatrooper

Mar 20, 2018

0

#3615

Where to begin. ponz111,

1. If somebody uses an ad hominem, that does absolutely nothing to validate your own argument. NOTHING. If someone is arguing that the world is flat, and I insult that person‘s intelligence, that is NOT “evidence” that the world is flat. The notion you would call that “evidence” is so absurd I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Mind you, the person who used the ad hominem did not make their own case either, but they sure as heck did not make yours.

2. If you perceive a person makes a bad argument or arguments, that ALSO is not “evidence” for your position. Again, let’s say I’m debating with a flat earther. I argue, “pancakes are delicious therefore the world is round.“ That is a bad argument for the world being round, BUT THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT THE WORLD IS FLAT.

3. You: “One poster kept insisting that it is impossible to play a perfect game without chess being solved.“ How about you quit telling blatant, bald faced lies. There was one time you misinterpreted a single post, and I explained it clearly over and over. It’s possible for someone to play a perfect game, although I think it’s probably unlikely to have ever happened. I could be wrong on that. My position is it’s impossible for you to KNOW if a perfect game has been played.

4. A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. Period. You have repeatedly used a textbook argumentum ad populum fallacy. It doesn’t cease being a logical fallacy when “combined“ with other arguments, whether or not those OTHER arguments are valid. The same for all of the above. A bad argument, is a bad argument, is a bad argument.

“We know the world is round because we have lots of imagery proving it. We have satellites orbiting the earth. We know that gravity tends to make large celestial bodies into the relative shape of a cylinder. Other evidence is the fact that a flat earther called me a mean name. And also, from right here on earth we can observe that our moon, the other planets, the stars including our own son are all round.”

Just no! That doesn’t magically become evidence just because I combined it with other arguments.

Elroch

Mar 20, 2018

0

#3616

ponz111 wrote:

Would you consider the status of games in the current correspondence chess situation [for the highest ranking duals of machine and human] as part of your efforts to make a statistical case?

I would. Is it still the case that a top engine assisted by a human (or vice versa) is significantly better than a top engine?

ponz111

Mar 20, 2018

0

#3617

Elroch wrote:

I thought the Berlin defense had the best claim?

for over-the-board not so much for correspondence

ponz111

Mar 20, 2018

0

#3618

USArmyParatrooper wrote: ponz in blue

Where to begin. ponz111,

1. If somebody uses an ad hominem, that does absolutely nothing to validate your own argument. NOTHING. If someone is arguing that the world is flat, and I insult that person‘s intelligence, that is NOT “evidence” that the world is flat. The notion you would call that “evidence” is so absurd I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Mind you, the person who used the ad hominem did not make their own case either, but they sure as heck did not make yours. OK I WOULD appreciate it if you could refrain from using ad hominem

2. If you perceive a person makes a bad argument or arguments, that ALSO is not “evidence” for your position. Again, let’s say I’m debating with a flat earther. I argue, “pancakes are delicious therefore the world is round.“ That is a bad argument for the world being round, BUT THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT THE WORLD IS FLAT. LOL i really do not disagree with this.

3. You: “One poster kept insisting that it is impossible to play a perfect game without chess being solved.“ How about you quit telling blatant, bald faced lies. There was one time you misinterpreted a single post, and I explained it clearly over and over. It’s possible for someone to play a perfect game, although I think it’s probably unlikely to have ever happened. I could be wrong on that. My position is it’s impossible for you to KNOW if a perfect game has been played. guess i will have to go back and look up a bunch of postings. however i totally dissgree with your position of what i can know or not know. [i have given the reasons for my disagreement with you on this]

4. A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy. Period. yes, a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy but your idea of the "ad populum fallacy" was incorrect and i explained why you were incorrecct

and instead of responding to what i said you just said "A logical fallacy is logical fallacy. Period. This is kinda typical of you to ignore what i posted.

You have repeatedly used a textbook argumentum ad populum fallacy. It doesn’t cease being a logical fallacy when “combined“ with other arguments, whether or not those OTHER arguments are valid. The same for all of the above. A bad argument, is a bad argument, is a bad argument. read what i posted [which you are trying to ignore]

“We know the world is round because we have lots of imagery proving it. We have satellites orbiting the earth. We know that gravity tends to make large celestial bodies into the relative shape of a cylinder. Other evidence is the fact that a flat earther called me a mean name. And also, from right here on earth we can observe that our moon, the other planets, the stars including our own son are all round.”Lots of laughs! I said this to point out what you were doing with your Ad hominem attacks.

Just no! That doesn’t magically become evidence just because I combined it with other arguments. I think you refer to circumstantial evidence here. I carefully explained to you how circumstantial evidence works and you are trying to ignore what i posted.

Yes, one piece of circumstantial evidence in itself might not be convincing but when combined

with a whole lot of other circumstantial evidence it does become convincing. This is used in court cases quite often. [i gave you an example which you are trying very hard to ignore]

ponz111

Mar 20, 2018

0

#3619

Elroch wrote:

ponz111 wrote:

Would you consider the status of games in the current correspondence chess situation [for the highest ranking duals of machine and human] as part of your efforts to make a statistical case?

I would. Is it still the case that a top engine assisted by a human (or vice versa) is significantly better than a top engine?

Yes, that is one reason someone just using a top engine alone gets you nowhere in the current correspondence environment and why some rise to the top.[ for chess.com players i am not referring to correspondence on chess.com which bans use of chess engines]

By the way if you will look at my 2 exhibitions on chess.com where i took Black in EVERY game against players [including masters] who used a chess engine of their choice--my record is some indication of this.

I took Black in the Ponziani[!] and Black in the Kings Gambit.

Elroch

Mar 20, 2018

0

#3620

Could you point me towards these exhibitions? It's the first I have heard of them!