Will computers ever solve chess?

   Rather, every reasonable player speculates that chess is a draw. That definition apparently excludes Kasparov, who doesn’t ‘know’ what other ‘reasonable’ players know...

 Now, when you put it that way, according to your definition and adding the fact about Kasparov presented above, your statement is either denied—not every reasonable player knows what you said they know, since Kasparov is a more than reasonable player—or the statement is true, every reasonable player knows that, but ‘every’ eliminates Kasparov, who is now relegated to the status of not being a reasonable player—which is a non-fact, so again your initial statement is denied.

  That being said, the strength of the player is irrelevant. The fact remains that as a fact, nobody knows.

  Each speculation triggers its feeling, but it’s the speculation that creates the image which creates the feeling. The feeling is like a shadow, while the root is the image created by the opinion about a fact which is no longer seen, only speculated about.

Boom.

Q: After 1.e4 e5 does white have mate in 136 moves on the board? 

A: “I don’t know”

Then you don’t KNOW if chess is a draw.

  The game of chess requires logic. But we are talking about perfect moves. We are not interested in how good are the GMs, or any player: no matter how good they are, from the vantage point of perfect moves they are nothing, and present-day machines as well.

 You don’t understand what perfect is. You keep jumping to conclusions that some stupid moves which are hold in high regard by theory today can be called perfect. That is jumping to conclusions.

  Next, the reason you don’t see that GMs jump to conclusions and are not ‘neutral’ in everyday life is because you don’t see yourself not being ‘neutral’ in everyday life.

  Now, you are still utterly confused about what a belief is. You say ‘ I believe my son is in school right now.’  But the fact is, he could be anywhere else, despite your belief that he’s there, the fact is that you don’t really know. This is the fact. You can speculate where he is, based on ‘factual evidence’, but if you’re not there right now with him, you simply don’t know. You are speculating, which is what a belief is, despite ‘ factual evidence’.

 Which is what we are saying: a perfect game may be a draw. It may not. Without speculating, we do not know. Unless we speculate. No speculation, no certainty. We don’t know. Nobody does. 

 The point is for you to start recognizing the difference between a certain fact and an uncertain belief/speculation. Two very different things.

  You do not know that a perfect game is a draw in the same way you do know your son is in school right now. 

 You can speculate in each case, but the fact remains that you don’t know with certainty.

  ‘Who are you?’ As predicted, you are already speculating about the answer: the root-speculation of them all.  I didn’t ask about ‘facts about you’. I asked who are you? Not what you did, what you accomplished, what you presently do, what you like and dislike, what is/was your profession—none of that. I asked who are you?

 But you cannot approach anything directly, you need the helping crutch of belief.

 Yes, as a fact, nobody knows.

 But he’s saying that he knows. Any idea how he jumped to that conclusion? Because most GMs say that, and he jumped on that bandwagon? Because he’s impatient not knowing, and he wants a certain conclusion? Wanting to feel certain, secure?

  Anything remotely logical that he presented as a basis for his reasoning?

 @s23bog . Do they ( "Some people aren't as gifted... ")trash talk? Just curious.

Another few pages and the only that has changed is Troy and USArmy are widening the common sense gap between themselves and Ponzi. If even an emotional girl can see that humans and machines are still a long way from perfection, shouldn't most everyone else see it too? I think it's possible someday a computer could solve chess, maybe if only by accident. And it's probably possible a perfect game has already been played, maybe between two 1400s who happened to each play literally the best moves possible. Maybe they had no idea the end result was the answer to chess. But no one, probably for a very long time will ever know. 

As for grandmasters opinions on perfect chess or the result of perfect chess, it reminds me of the commercial about the brain surgeon. Maybe he's never seen the inside of a hospital or even graduated from community college, but he DID stay at a Holiday Inn last night. Compared to perfection, a grandmaster (and probably even the worlds best computer) is a bumbling beginner. Neither have any clue what perfection is nor do they "know" what the outcome of a perfect game is. 

  YET he knows. Don’t ask how, he just knows. Just because you don’t know doesn’t mean he doesn’t either. Evidence?  He’s produced enough of it, other people agreed with him ( another piece of evidence), and of course, most GMs believe it’s a draw. And since believing and knowing are the same, the GMs actually know it’s a draw. Another piece of evidence, right there!

 Enough evidence in another thread, no point in repeating it here, to a bunch of people who decided in advance he’s wrong. 

  Of course, don’t forget present theory, as a partial factor, his own analysis and experience (!) , the brilliant way he beat some National Master, and let’s not forget his amazing puzzle-solving skills, which the best computers cannot yet match, maybe in the future but not now, and in general, the amazing amount of knowledge that we accumulated about the game of chess—all of this proves, together, because any single factor in itself is not enough but together...eh, together it’s quite a different story...all these factors in combination, show without any doubt whatsoever that a perfect game ends in a draw. Crystal-clear, eh?

  After all, he DID stay at the Hollywood Inn last night!

That's good. Next time you see a comment that's confusing to you, you can just google it.

I do not think i mentioned beating a national master?  I did comment on a certain move [3. d4] as it was brought up by someone else.

And, yes, when you take a whole lot of circumstantial evidence together--it very often is good proof--while any one piece of the circumstantial evidence would be evidence but not sufficient evidence.

This happens very often in court trials.

It was mentioned by troy [ 3. d4 ]...

 Of course, that’s how it works in court. The problem here is that every single evidence presented has nothing to do with what is being talked about, hence the Holiday Inn stay.

 What happens when all the individual ‘proofs’ are individually false? Do they magically become true? No, they remain false, because combining false with more false doesn’t change the false into true: it’s still false.

 It’s like a jerk being attracted to another jerk. They marry and what happens with the new family—when a jerk marries another jerk? 

  They’re two married jerks now!

As usual, you have take the smallest quote snippet you can and then portray it out of context.  It's your go-to tactic when you can't handle something...which is quite frequently.

Here is the whole quote. If you are confused about Venn diagrams then you can just google it.

Clearly, from all our previous encounters with your tired old Venn diagrams, nobody could be confused about them on this thread.  That doesn't prevent you from misusing them, exactly in the manner you do with your silly tree diagrams.  Maybe you'd have a career at Cambridge Analytica, fooling people at your own level...

---

Vickalan believes in magic:

"As for solving chess, there is some reason to believe it can happen within a decade or two." (page 61)

You were trying to use a Venn diagram to make an assessment about the scope, size, and magnitude of solving chess.

   It is ambiguous because you are confused. In clarity, ‘who are you’ is very clear. In a state of confusion, for a mind drowned in beliefs mistaken for facts, it is ambiguous. Being in a state of confusion you cannot listen to what is said. I clearly said that the answer to that question has nothing to do with ‘facts about yourself’, likes, dislikes and all that, yet you haven’t heard it, and instead are repeating exactly what I established as being irrelevant, like ‘facts about yourself’, instead the fact of yourself, the nature and the structure of yourself.

 Instead of saying “I don’t know what you mean, if you don’t want ‘facts about myself’ “,  on automatic pilot you repeated what was already eliminated.

  This is what you do about the chess discussion. You keep repeating irrelevant arguments, or downright wrong ones.

Take for instance, the percentage statement. A fact is something that you are 100% sure of. Do you have 0.01% doubts that your son standing in front of you is not quite in front of you? If you do, perhaps you want to check yourself into a psychiatric institution.

 Now, when he’s in school you are not sure 100% he’s there. That means it is not a fact that you know he’s there. Do you understand the difference between the two facts?

 One fact is that he’s there. Let’s just say he’s in school, as a fact. It doesn’t matter what you think about his location: the fact remains that he’s in school.

 The other fact is you thinking where he is. And despite believing one way or the  other, the fact remains that you don’t know where he is. You may try to reassure yourself that he’s alright, but the actual fact is that he might be dead—now, with all these school shootings. By the way, this is what ‘neutral’ means, ‘objective’. I’m talking objectively about a possible scenario.

 Therefore , we have two different facts. One is that your son is in school. But you knowing that is not a fact, it’s a speculation. Even if the speculation turns out to be true, it remains a speculation. This is the part you keep missing. Speculating about something which turns out to be true doesn’t turn the speculation into a fact. Yes, it may turn out it is a fact. But you still speculated it about it. 

 The actual, second, fact is that you don’t know where he is. Right? Fact no.1: he is in school. You don’t come into the picture just yet. Fact no. 2: you don’t know where he is.

  Now, let’s for a moment go back to that percentage. How exactly did your brain come out with that percentage, 99.99 that a perfect game ends up in a draw?

 Once again, don’t ignore a point that I’ve been repeatedly making, and which Patriot just above did again: from a perfection point of view, GMs are like children playing in the sand with their toys. They have no idea what ‘perfect’ is, both in relation to a move or a game. Same for present-day computers.

 Finally, let us refute the argument which you think is strongest, but we will see that it’s more of the same. You are saying that to you ‘perfect’ means a move that doesn’t change the evaluation of a position. Surely this is a flawed argument. Right? Does anybody have any doubts it is flawed? Can you see right away that it is flawed? The reasoning comes later, but a quick mind sees immediately that it is based on a false premise

 Right? Ok, let us dismantle it. That definition, sir, starts from the premise that the initial position is equal, which certainly does look like that, except that White has the first move. But that may be an advantage or a disadvantage. And if you consider the initial position equal based on looks, then of course that the perfect game is the one who maintains this more or less equal position.

 Now, apart from the fact that nobody knows what is the true evaluation of the initial position, let us just go with it, and say that, as a fact, the initial position is equal, or slightly advantageous for White as it gets to move first and have an initiative. Ok, so far perfect reasoning ( we’re accepting it to be perfect for purposes of this discussion). Now what? White makes a move, 1. e4 and we can’t evaluate it here because we must give Black a chance to respond. So Black responds with 1...e5. Did that change the evaluation? Theory says no. You say no. But USArmy asked a question: does anybody know that White doesn’t have a forced mate in 136 moves?  Nobody knows for sure, which means nobody knows. Therefore, our evaluation may have already drastically changed after 1...e5. In effect, the move 1...e5 may not be perfect, even by your standards. Which, of course, disqualifies the whole game as being perfect.

 And the same goes for every following move. 2. Nf3 may be a forced win for Black, 2...Nc6 may be a forced win for White and 3. Bb5 may lose by force.

  Conclusion: unless you played through all the possible moves, you have no idea what the final evaluation of an opening position really is. Without knowing that final evaluation, you have no way of knowing what a perfect move is, and therefore, what a perfect game is.

 You’re in the dark, pal.

  Apparently memory has run out of space. You said your comment was in relation to a comment made by someone about 3. d4. That someone was me, proposing 3. d4 as opposed to 3. Bb5, and you mention an irrelevant win, as if to show it is somewhat ‘wrong’, even though Kasparov’s revival of the Scotch proved the contrary...

Moreover, you are saying ‘ a belief dies not require to be be 100% true. That’s what why it ‘s a belief.

  A fact requires to be true 100%.