you came with a ciclopic absurdity like mate in 136 and ask people to prove is not wrong :-)
it's a show
Serious question. And I know from your standpoint the answer should be selfevident, and it is, but there’s a reason I’m asking.
What makes the question absurd?
Still waiting.
mate in 136 move = angels and devils and spirits exist but you can't prove the opposite = tsoukalos argument
I thought it was 137 moves, but I may have missed a quicker finish.
Two questions for ponz, excellent player that he is.
mate in 136 move = angels and devils and spirits exist but you can't prove the opposite = tsoukalos argument
I just want to clarify, so you’re saying the question is absurd because there’s no way to know the answer, right? I just want to make sure I’m not misunderstanding you.
no no i believe there's a mate in 137 one in 136 and one for every number over 30 moves...over 30 moves there's a mate net...i believe this and we all know is a fact (<------in bold i get more autority..how fine !)
Just to clarify i say that mate in 136 move = angels gods and spirits exist .
Absurd was my horrible mistake :-)
USArmy It is true that after the senario i gave--that the jury might come back with with a not guilty verdict.
Their verdict does not necessarily have much to do with the truth. In my state of Illinois there were 12 people on death row who were later exonerated.
That is beside the point. it would not be beside the point for someone on trial for murder.
“Based on my experience” is essentially saying “Because I said so.” Nope, the two sentences are different with different meanings.
It is meaningless. It is not evidence. It would not be acceptable for a jury. Acually juries often take into consideration experts in various fields.
It would not be acceptable for a scientific hypothesis.A scientific hypothesis is an idea of how something works. It does not declare how something works. It requires study and proof before it becomes more than a hypotheis. So one can have a hypotheis about many things and yes, one can have a hypotheis about chess.
It would not be acceptable as a mathematical proof (which is arguably what solving chess is). What would not be acceptable as a mathematical proof? If you mean that the game of chess is a draw--i never said that would be acceptable as a mathematical proof.
This whole “99.99% sure because I’m not 100% sure of anything“ is a copout and it’s meant to muddy the waters.No, it is meant to state where i stand.
We are talking about a real world conversation. In philosophy there is a premise that there’s no such thing as absolute certainty; I agree with this, that is why i never say something has been proved with absolute certainty.
for example, how do we know we are not trapped in the matrix and none of this is real? That adds no value to the conversation. Sure it does. You may not like the concept but it adds value to the conversation.
You claim to be *AS* certain now as you would be if chess were solved and concluded the same thing. This sentence is so poorly worded that i do not know what it means?
Suggest you reword if you want a response. I very much doubt, however, if you are quoting anything i would say?
In the *colloquial* (not philosophical) sense, you are in fact claiming certainty. And that certainty is woefully unjustified. Says you.
- That chess played at a high level is often a draw doesn’t even come close to meeting the burden of proof. That piece of evidence, by itself, does not prove my statement. But it is some evidence. And when you get a lot of pieces of evidence--they together--can prove a point--just as what happens in a lot of court cases.
- Whether or not some or most GM’s guess it’s a draw is irrrelevant and isn’t evidence of anything. Nope it is not irrelevant--you just wish to discard this piece of evidence because it does not conform with your preconceived ideas.
- “Based on my experience” “Based on my knowledge” or whatever variant of “Because I said so” isn’t evidence of anything. Actually you are trying to equate "Based on my knowledge" and "Because I said so". But those two expressions have different meaning. What you are doing is a strawman argument here--equating the 2 terms as equal when I never said the 2nd term.
You’re claiming to factually know the outcome from the starting position. You’re claiming to factually know the outcome after three moves have been played. AND YOU HAVE NO PROOF. Here is where you go wrong. I have a whole lot of evidence for my claim and have given much of my evidence and all the pieces of evidence added together make a proof. Also others have posted evidence.
All of your so-called evidence have been laughable. You even had the audacity to claim people were being mean to you, and that that is evidence chess is a draw! NO, was my little joke.
Actually my claim is that YOU using Ad hominem quite often makes what YOU say suspect.
OK so you magically know the theoretical outcome of perfect chest after three moves.
This is a form of "strawman". I do not use magic to come up with my claim. Also, the claim was about a particular 3 moves--not just "three moves"
How about after four moves? (1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7) Is black trapped in an obscenely long mating net, yes or no? Here you seem to be making the logical fallacy of "either/or?" There are more than 2 options and my option is neither of the alternatives you gave.
And how do you know? How do i know what? Your sentence is incomplete.
To 5120: Call It ‘hypothesis’ if you like. It may be true, it may not. But at the moment this particular hypothesis cannot be proved.
After all, a belief based on facts is still not a fact: a belief based on facts may still be a non-fact.
It is irrelevant that it has a 33.33% chance to be right, or even higher, it is still not a fact that can be ‘seen’ at this point in time, despite contrary claims.
so what troy say is a fact and what we say it's a belief....it's really Amazing.
hope you have fun with yourself :-)
The fact is that we don’t know. The belief is when we say ‘we know’.
I thought it was 137 moves, but I may have missed a quicker finish.
Two questions for ponz, excellent player that he is.
I thought it was 137 moves, but I may have missed a quicker finish.
Two questions for ponz, excellent player that he is.
Both 3. Bb5 and 3. d4 are perfect moves because they do not change the theoretical outcome of a chess game.
You appear to be retarded ( clinically speaking ) here: how do you know that it doesn’t change the theoretical outcome of the game? Those two moves, that is.
Do you understand that there is no way to know the final outcome of a perfect game, and that you have presented no piece of evidence, which is not surprising in the least, because there is no logical evidence, by the very nature of what a perfect move means, your meaning of it included.
And one more thing: you were saying that you cannot be sure of anything 100%. Short on memory again, I already gave you an example: your son standing in front of you is a 100% certain fact. When your’re not that 100% sure, you’re simply confused.
And if you cannot be sure about the outcome of a perfect game ( because your completely clueless about what a perfect move is ), then it is not a fact and you are simply speculating.
But the intelligence to see this simple fact is missing.
The lack of comprehension ability is off the charts.
If an actual PhD mathematician offered “It’s true based on my experience“ as a mathematical proof he or she would get laughed at. And a mathematician is an *actual* authority. You are NOT an authority on the solution to solved chess.
Since you don’t have “absolute certainty“ about *anything*, how does it substantively add to the conversation?
“This sentence is so poorly worded that i do not know what it means?”
It’s not poorly worded, once again you have comprehension issues. Serious question, is English your second language?
By the way I’m going to do you a solid. How would you like fame and fortune? Since you claim to have conclusively determined the outcome of solved chess, you should submit your findings and compile all of this “amazing“ evidence of yours - and win your Nobel prize in mathematics.
troy Your last long statement was way too long for me to respond to without copying the previous statements which were also way too long to be practical. If you would wish to detach that last very long statement from the other very long statement i will be glad to answer it.
However i will note now that in your recent statement you again used the logical fallacy of "strawman"
There are no answers to what was said. You keep showing no evidence for your belief.
Let’s find out more about belief and fact, since your confusion stems from there.
You can be 99% sure of something, or you can be 1% sure of the same thing. The former case implies a strong belief: I don’t care what it’s based on, certain facts that seem to indicate that it’s true or pure fantasy. It is irrelevant for what we’re discussing here.It’s a strong belief.
In the latter case, a weak belief is implied. Again, irrelevant what is based on, related facts or wild fantasy. It’s a weak belief.
So you either have a strong belief or a weak belief.
But even the strongest of beliefs is not a fact. It’s still a belief. Not a fact.
Now let’s make sure your brain understands what a fact is. Fact is what happens right now or what happened in the past.
In a court of law, they are trying to establish only the latter kind of facts. When doing so, such facts are attempted to be first recollected. That is already a problem, since many factors that have happened after-the-fact have already altered that recollection of the facts. Special circumstances in that moment also altered the registration of the facts.
Which is why, in a court of law, they are only trying to establish the facts ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. So the final outcome of such a process results in a belief that things have happened a certain way, not the actual way things have happened.
If that belief proves strong enough to impress a jury, a conviction or acquittal is secured. But it’s just a belief, and ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ is just baloney for feeble minds. 50 years later, it may turn out the ‘facts’ were actually fiction, the work of a overzealous prosecutor, retarded jury, or downright manipulation of the authorities.
Nothing to do with the actual facts that have happened. Just a belief.
So stop bringing up the court of law example: it is meaningless.
Focus instead on facts that are happening right now. As previously said, your son standing in front of you right now is an actual fact. The computer you’re typing on right now is an actual fact, about which there are no doubts. 100% certainty.
If you don’t have that clarity and certainty about a perfect move, it is not a fact. The fact remains that you don’t know, despite hanging on to a strong belief, based on what you think are related facts or pure fantasy.
The only fact is that you are not 100% certain. Therefore, the only fact is that you don’t know.
The lack of comprehension ability is off the charts.
Since you don’t have “absolute certainty“ about *anything*, how does it substantively add to the conversation?
That’s exactly what I’ve just posted!
troy Your last long statement was way too long for me to respond to without copying the previous statements which were also way too long to be practical. If you would wish to detach that last very long statement from the other very long statement i will be glad to answer it.
However i will note now that in your recent statement you again used the logical fallacy of "strawman"
Limit your answer here to your evaluation gimmick. How does anyone know what is the final evaluation of a move?
In your flawed example of a perfect game, how does anyone know that 1...e5 doesn’t lose by force in 136 perfect sequence of best moves?
This question is merely for you, because in actuality nobody really knows the evaluation of the initial position. It may look equal, but looks are deceiving.
What if Black or White are ultimately destined to lose with best play?
Current theory holds the belief that the initial position is equal, and so every move that changes that evaluation is a potential blunder or at least an inaccuracy. You are embracing that belief.
What you are failing to understand is that this is just a belief, a way of approaching this extraordinarily complex problem of chess, nothing more than a model of tackling the enormous task of actually solving chess.
And the first belief of this model is that the initial position is equal ( because it looks so) and every ulterior evaluation reinforces this root evaluation. Because everything now gravitates against the question: is it still equal? Did something change, did an imbalance occur? Is the position already not equal anymore?
And so this belief that it starts from equality sneaks in and soon enough is seen as a fact.
That is one point.
The other point is even assuming we could know it’s a fact, and it is equal, how does anyone know that 1...e5 doesn’t change that equal evaluation? They don’t, but they can sure speculate one way or another. Same goes for 2. Nf3 2...Nc6, 3. Bb5 or 3. d4.
Nobody knows, but some inattentive folks speculate without being aware it’s only a speculation.
troy Your last long statement was way too long for me to respond to without copying the previous statements which were also way too long to be practical. If you would wish to detach that last very long statement from the other very long statement i will be glad to answer it.
However i will note now that in your recent statement you again used the logical fallacy of "strawman"
There are no answers to what was said. You keep showing no evidence for your belief.
says you...
Let’s find out more about belief and fact, since your confusion stems from there. i am not confused but you may be confused as you keep using logical fallacies.
You can be 99% sure of something, or you can be 1% sure of the same thing. The former case implies a strong belief: I don’t care what it’s based on, certain facts that seem to indicate that it’s true or pure fantasy. It is irrelevant for what we’re discussing here.It’s a strong belief. Yes, 99% sure would be a strong belief.
In the latter case, a weak belief is implied. Again, irrelevant what is based on, related facts or wild fantasy. It’s a weak belief. 1% sure makes little sense as if you believe something you are far more than 1% sure.
So you either have a strong belief or a weak belief. NO!! This is the logical fallacy of "either/or" There are more than 2 possibilities. For example one could be 60% sure. Or someone might not have a belief at all about a subject.
But even the strongest of beliefs is not a fact. It’s still a belief. Not a fact. One's belief could be a fact or it might not be a fact. For example the Catholic Church used to believe that the sun revloved around the earth--this belief was not a fact. Another person, a scientist, believed that the earth revolved around the sun--his belief was also a fact. So you are inccorect in stating a belief cannot also be a fact.
Now let’s make sure your brain understands what a fact is. Fact is what happens right now or what happened in the past. This is only one definition of "fact." it is a 2ndary definition in the dictionary where i looked it up. Another definition is "something that actually exists" another definition is "something known to have happened"
another definition is "truth gathered from actual experience" another definition is "something said to be true or supposed to be true.
In a court of law, they are trying to establish only the latter kind of facts. you mean "what happened in the past"?
When doing so, such facts are attempted to be first recollected. That is already a problem, since many factors that have happened after-the-fact have already altered that recollection of the facts. recollection by a witness or someone else is often a rather poor piece of evidence.
Special circumstances in that moment also altered the registration of the facts. I think you mean "recollection of facts" here?
Which is why, in a court of law, they are only trying to establish the facts ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. that is one of the reasons they are only trying to establish the facts beyond a reasonable doubt--there are other reasons also.
So the final outcome of such a process results in a belief that things have happened a certain way, not the actual way things have happened. NO!!! Here is one place you go wrong. Because the belief that something have happened in a certain way--very often is coincides with the actual facts!
If that belief proves strong enough to impress a jury, a conviction or acquittal is secured. But it’s just a belief, and ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ is just baloney for feeble minds. It is not baloney for the judge and jury--it is not baloney for the person or persons accused. It is not baloney for the people interested in the case.
50 years later, it may turn out the ‘facts’ were actually fiction, the work of a overzealous prosecutor, retarded jury, or downright manipulation of the authorities.
Yes, sometimes things thought of as facts can turn out to be untrue. I have given lots of examples of this.
Nothing to do with the actual facts that have happened. Just a belief. this is part of a sentence so am not sure if you are trying to make a point as i do not know what your 2 sentences mean? A belief can be proven untrue--i have never said otherwise--so what is your point? Even something said to be a fact can be proven untrue--i have said this many times.
So stop bringing up the court of law example: it is meaningless. It is meaningless to you as you do not seem to gasp what circumstantial evidence is or how it works? Also you apparently don't care about that particular judicial system.
Focus instead on facts that are happening right now. Why??? I can focus on facts that happened in the past if i wish to!!
As previously said, your son standing in front of you right now is an actual fact. I did not say that at all. You again are using "STRAWMAN" Your continued use of logical fallacies does not speak well for your arguments.
The computer you’re typing on right now is an actual fact, about which there are no doubts. 100% certainty.The computer exists--it is a fact that the computer exists. It would still exist now even if it existed in the past. It could also exist now even if in the past it did not exist. I am 99.99% sure that the computer i am typing on exists.
did you ever consider it might not be me typing on the computer? Did you ever consider i might be typing on something other than a computer?
If you don’t have that clarity and certainty about a perfect move, it is not a fact. this is an ambigous statement. what clarity and what certainty? and what move? Certain moves I am 99.99% sure that they are perfect moves [per the definition of "perfect" we have been using.] Often what someone believes is a fact.
The fact remains that you don’t know, despite hanging on to a strong belief, based on what you think are related facts or pure fantasy. This is another example of "strawman" You are again using a logical fallacy. I do not use pure fantasy to come up with my beliefs.
The only fact is that you are not 100% certain. Therefore, the only fact is that you don’t know. There is a difference between not being 100% certain and not knowing something. One can "know something" if he is 99.99% certain that it is true. The word "know" has many meanings and these includ "discern" "cognize" "perceive" "recognize" and "realize".
I'd say a perfect game is when pieces of equal value get taken away, one after the other. So it get's to the point where so many pieces are removed, that it's a draw. This seems to make some sense. Each move by black has to try and equalize the game
Of course computers will solve chess. Unless you think a computer that uses the entire energy output of a star to power itself would not be able to crack it. Imagine the most powerful computer on Earth. Now imagine multiple billions of them working together. That is not as powerful as the Matrioshka brains we'll eventually have, because the computers in the Matrioshka brain will be orders of magnitude more powerful, and will probably include AI.
Enjoy chess while you can.
Of course computers will solve chess. Unless you think a computer that uses the entire energy output of a star to power itself would not be able to crack it. Imagine the most powerful computer on Earth. Now imagine multiple billions of them working together. That is not as powerful as the Matrioshka brains we'll eventually have, because the computers in the Matrioshka brain will be orders of magnitude more powerful, and will probably include AI.
Enjoy chess while you can.
There are more possible game variations in chess than there are atoms in the universe. Will it ever be solved? It might. But the enormity of the task cannot be understated.
As for the "titled players know chess is a draw" argument...well, the top super GMs were all shocked by a bishop sacrifice made by a brand new engine to lock up an endgame. Clearly, human beings have plenty to learn about chess, and now that engines are going to use their own play rather than human evaluation methods for determining best play, humans will be shocked many, many more times in the coming years. Eventually it will go beyond shock and we will cease to understand "best play" at all. This outcome is completely inevitable.
(and still at that point, chess will not be solved
...)