That parallel is only a weak inference.
Yes, it is a somewhat weak inference. However there is a lot of other evidence which indicates chess is a draw when neither side makes an error. When one has a ton of evidence--he can rightly give his opinion that chess is a draw.
That parallel is only a weak inference.
Yes, it is a somewhat weak inference. However there is a lot of other evidence which indicates chess is a draw when neither side makes an error. When one has a ton of evidence--he can rightly give his opinion that chess is a draw.
That still doesn't make any sense to me. You are still assuming you know what an error is, from the very first move of the game. On the 51st move, when it's a mate in one, of course we all know what the best move is and what an error is. But on the first move, none of us know. So that ton of evidence is almost no evidence.
Like you I can say there is a ton of evidence that chess is always a win for white when neither side makes an error. I can say that because, like you, I can assume that what I believe about best play, and errors, is true. The actual truth is neither of us know what whites best first move is, and what the best response is. To say that chess is a draw when neither side makes an error, is an error. The correct answer is "I dont know".
That parallel is only a weak inference.
Yes, it is a somewhat weak inference. However there is a lot of other evidence which indicates chess is a draw when neither side makes an error. When one has a ton of evidence--he can rightly give his opinion that chess is a draw.
That still doesn't make any sense to me. You are still assuming you know what an error is, from the very first move of the game. On the 51st move, when it's a mate in one, of course we all know what the best move is and what an error is. But on the first move, none of us know. So that ton of evidence is almost no evidence. You are taking one piece of my evidence and ignoring all the other evidence. You are also assuming i cannot discern moves from the opening position which do not lose. You are also assuming many strong GMs cannot discern moves from the opening position which do not lose.
Like you I can say there is a ton of evidence that chess is always a win for white when neither side makes an error. I can say that because, like you, I can assume that what I believe about best play, and errors, is true.One differnce between you and i is that i give a lot of evidence and you have not given evidence that chess is a win.
The actual truth is neither of us know what whites best first move is, and what the best response is. You are making a big assumption here. You assume there is only ONE best first move. In fact there are many first moves which lead to the theoretical result.
To say that chess is a draw when neither side makes an error, is an error. The correct answer is "I dont know". I have already said, several times that i do not know 100%. I am saying from a ton of evidence [most of which you completely ignore] it is my opinion that chess is a draw when neither side makes an error which would change the theoretical result of the game. I can reasonably say this as i have given much evidence to support my opinion. The fact that you ignore my evidence does not mean i have given no evidence.
That parallel is only a weak inference.
Yes, it is a somewhat weak inference. However there is a lot of other evidence which indicates chess is a draw when neither side makes an error. When one has a ton of evidence--he can rightly give his opinion that chess is a draw.
That still doesn't make any sense to me. You are still assuming you know what an error is, from the very first move of the game. On the 51st move, when it's a mate in one, of course we all know what the best move is and what an error is. But on the first move, none of us know. So that ton of evidence is almost no evidence.
Like you I can say there is a ton of evidence that chess is always a win for white when neither side makes an error. I can say that because, like you, I can assume that what I believe about best play, and errors, is true. The actual truth is neither of us know what whites best first move is, and what the best response is. To say that chess is a draw when neither side makes an error, is an error. The correct answer is "I dont know".
Bingo!
That parallel is only a weak inference.
Yes, it is a somewhat weak inference. However there is a lot of other evidence which indicates chess is a draw when neither side makes an error. When one has a ton of evidence--he can rightly give his opinion that chess is a draw.
When neither side makes an error.
In the beginning stages of a game no one knows what an error is, as Patriot just pointed out and as I pointed out numerous times earlier. You say it is a move that ‘doesn’t change the theoretical result of the game.’ But no one knows the theoretical result of the game.
So you are assuming twice: first you assume you know the result of the theoretical result of the game—inferred from the actual theory, which is nothing, because no one knows the actual theoretical result. And then you assume a second time, when you judge an error based on its ability to change the theoretical result of the game, which, let’s not forget, was also an assumption.
So you start with an assumption presented as a fact or an ‘almost fact’, and then you are presenting ‘evidence’ based on another assumption ( ‘tons of games when neither side makes an error’ ) which is presented as a fact because it is based on the initial assumption being already a fact.
However, since the original assumption is still not a fact, the whole thing falls apart. Your ‘ton of evidence’ is based on a non-fact presented as a fact, and a circular reasoning that everything else must be a fact, if the original starting point was a fact. But the so-called ‘evidence’ depended on the starting point to be a fact, in order to be presented as evidence and to validate the starting point. Since the starting point is not a fact, the presented ‘evidence’ is invalid. Thus all you are left with is the starting point: a non-fact, an assumption, with no evidence whatsoever.
Quite simple, eh?
You are right. I should add, 'No AI knows'.
AI knows more than humans, which is why alpha can beat any of them. But even that machine is far, far away from knowing everything about chess.
That parallel is only a weak inference.
Yes, it is a somewhat weak inference. However there is a lot of other evidence which indicates chess is a draw when neither side makes an error. When one has a ton of evidence--he can rightly give his opinion that chess is a draw.
When neither side makes an error.
In the beginning stages of a game no one knows what an error is, as Patriot just pointed out and as I pointed out numerous times earlier. You say it is a move that ‘doesn’t change the theoretical result of the game.’ But no one knows the theoretical result of the game. NOBODY knows 100% however many strong players have a very high degree of confidence of the theoretical result of the game.
So you are assuming twice: first you assume you know the result of the theoretical result of the game—inferred from the actual theory, actually it is not just inferred from actual theory. [the term "actual theory" is ambiguous]
which is nothing, because no one knows the actual theoretical result. And then you assume a second time, when you judge an error based on its ability to change the theoretical result of the game, which, let’s not forget, was also an assumption. Some people are better in being able to judge errors. The stronger the player--the more ability he has to judge errors. Those who do not have a strong ability to judge errors often say it is impossible.
So you start with an assumption presented as a fact or an ‘almost fact’, and then you are presenting ‘evidence’ based on another assumption ( ‘tons of games when neither side makes an error’ ) which is presented as a fact because it is based on the initial assumption being already a fact. Sorry but you are neglecting to state most of the evidence i have given. Of course if you do not look at the evidence--you will have no idea if chess is a draw or a win?
However, since the original assumption is still not a fact, the whole thing falls apart. Your ‘ton of evidence’ is based on a non-fact presented as a fact, This is simply not true--you are neglecting to look at most of the evidence i have given.
and a circular reasoning that everything else must be a fact, if the original starting point was a fact. But the so-called ‘evidence’ depended on the starting point to be a fact, in order to be presented as evidence and to validate the starting point. Since the starting point is not a fact, the presented ‘evidence’ is invalid. Thus all you are left with is the starting point: a non-fact, an assumption, with no evidence whatsoever.
Quite simple, eh? What is the starting point ? My starting point was that chess is not solved and never may be solved. What is wrong with that?
If that is the starting point, then you can talk of no facts regarding the theoretical result of chess, the result of the perfect game, the spotting of errors—especially in the beginning of the game—and ‘the tons of evidence’. There is no evidence if all of the above are unknown.
Again, you are introducing a crooked argument, namely that strong players can spot errors better than weaker players. When it comes to the beginning of the game, nobody, strong or weak players or engines for that matter, can spot errors because nobody has viewed the entire tree of variations.
It has been repeatedly pointed out that in the beginning you cannot call many moves considered good by the actual theory errors or not, because it is not possible to call moves at that early stage ‘best’ or ‘errors’, except sometimes the most obvious ones, but what about the rest, less obvious ones? Your logic reverses circularly to ‘what strong players think’, which proves nothing.
This is the evidence you provided when asked why are the first few moves of the Ruy Lopez perfect—so that such a ‘game’ ending in a quick draw was presented as perfect? ‘Because they do not change the theoretical result of the game’. Which was an assumption, not a fact. As a fact you don’t know what that result is, and so you don’t know if those moves were perfect, thus you don’t know if the game was perfect or imperfect. Going further, even if your assumption was a proven fact—which isn’t, but even if it was—that chess is a draw, you don’t know that those first few opening moves end in a draw or not. You just assume they do, based on the few( relative to the total number of possible games from those few moves) games that have been played. Just another assumption. Moving from one guess to another, having the foundation for one guess, the fragile skeleton of yet another guess. The whole foundation is based on guesses.
So as a guess, assumption or opinion, you can fancy anything you like. But factually, as a fact, you cannot say anything. This is the bottom line.
The fact remains that unless all the variations are being taken into consideration we cannot say anything factually about ‘best moves on either side’, obvious exceptions not included. We can speculate, but factually we cannot say anything. The difference between guessing, assuming and seeing something as-a-matter-of-fact is clear, one hopes.
And we far, far away from the day when all the variants are being thoroughly examined.
You haven’t heard me because I haven’t spoken to you. But you read the words. The author of the words is not important, their content is. If something written is true or false, that’s all that should matter.
Now, nobody here has any problems with assumptions in the game of chess. Just don’t present assumptions as facts.
The response contains words being used in the post it intended to respond to and there is an understanding that shows the reading took place.
Again, this taking facts to their extreme was not the issue here: unless all the variations are being calculated, no one has the actual facts. At the moment, we all have partial pictures, quite small given the immensity of the whole, final tree of moves.
We do not exist by knowing anything is 100% true. We believe we are not something in the mind of a giant computer but we cannot prove this is true. We believe our sun will not go nova in the next 1000 years but we cannot prove this 100% When we are in bed in the morning we have to make a decision--should we take the risk of getting up out of bed and risk injury sometime during the day or should we stay in bed and risk other things? This is only a guess but we have to live and make the guess and in most cases we will get up out of bed.
Those demanding 100% knowledge are deluding themselves. We live our lifes with imperfect knowledge.
It is not necessary for me to know 100% that chess is a draw when neither side makes an error. I can state that it is my opinion or i can even state that i "know" this with only my 99.99% being sure that i am correct. I can and do point to a whole lot of circumstantial evidence [that people like troy just completely ignore] to back up my statement. I have about 12 pages of evidence. It is circumstantial evidence but it is very strong circumstantial evidence--so strong that I say that chess is a draw as long as neither side makes an error which would change the theoretical result of the game.
Yes, some players who do not have my experience--will say that i am wrong but i do not care.
We do not exist by knowing anything is 100% true. We believe we are not something in the mind of a giant computer but we cannot prove this is true. We believe our sun will not go nova in the next 1000 years but we cannot prove this 100% When we are in bed in the morning we have to make a decision--should we take the risk of getting up out of bed and risk injury sometime during the day or should we stay in bed and risk other things? This is only a guess but we have to live and make the guess and in most cases we will get up out of bed.
Those demanding 100% knowledge are deluding themselves. We live our lifes with imperfect knowledge.
It is not necessary for me to know 100% that chess is a draw when neither side makes an error. I can state that it is my opinion or i can even state that i "know" this with only my 99.99% being sure that i am correct. I can and do point to a whole lot of circumstantial evidence [that people like troy just completely ignore] to back up my statement. I have about 12 pages of evidence. It is circumstantial evidence but it is very strong circumstantial evidence--so strong that I say that chess is a draw as long as neither side makes an error which would change the theoretical result of the game.
Yes, some players who do not have my experience--will say that i am wrong but i do not care.
But you don’t know the theoretical result of the game—you assume you know, and the strength of that assumption is 99.99%. That means that even by your own standards of going by the strength of your belief, there is a chance that chess is not a draw. Which invalidates everything you wrote, those ‘12 pages’ included.
Therefore, it still remains a guess, regardless of how close you believe you are from knowing it as a fact. It is still not a fact and you can be wrong.
As long as that is a possibility, all that you said is NOT A FACT.
Of course, the strength of your belief is one thing and factual evidence is another. Either way, as long as there is a possibility that chess is not a draw—belief-wise or scientific-wise, it matters not—then the statement ‘chess is a draw’ is a NON-FACT.
Quite simple logic .
False. No one has the ACTUAL FACT I read troy's post, only a partial picture at most.
When it comes to ‘solving chess’ the actual fact of it being a draw, win for White or win for Black, is only given by exhausting all the lines, from move one.
Since you say that opinions are facts, then there are fictional facts and factual facts .... is that gist of it?
I have already explained that. There are facts and facts. Opinions are facts in themselves. But their content expresses a judgment on another fact. When that judgment is presented as the fact it judges upon, then a non-fact is presented as a fact. Let’s say something happens. That’s A. Then I make a judgment about A. That fact we will call B. But B is not A. My judgment about A is not A. A is A, and my judgment on it is B.
The problem occurs when I try to present B as A. This is how the mind gets lost in opinions, and soon enough the original facts are being forgotten. All we have is a war of opinions about facts which are no longer examined, for the opinion becomes more important.
try, I think you just belittle chess theory and experience. Sorry to say that.
I do, because as a fact from the point of view of chess being solved, theory means nothing.
But as a player, I value theory, but I can it it’s a matter of belief. As I said before, Kasparov had no problem admitting that fact. It depends on how honest a player is, how good they are at not pretending and inventing facts just to project an image of ‘I know, you don’t’.
Troy
People give opinions on things every day. People state certain things are facts everyday. They do not have to believe 100% that something is a fact to call a fact a fact.
By your reasoning--nothing is a fact. If you wish to live that way and reason that way--this is fine. But for me, i live in the real world. [and that is a fact]
Troy
People give opinions on things every day. People state certain things are facts everyday. They do not have to believe 100% that something is a fact to call a fact a fact.
By your reasoning--nothing is a fact. If you wish to live that way and reason that way--this is fine. But for me, i live in the real world. [and that is a fact]
The point is that I have no problems with going with your instincts or opinions, or whatever name you have for them. But they are not facts. Which means you don’t know. I don’t know why it’s so frightening to admit one doesn’t know.
Again, facts do exist, don’t generalize that all we have is opinions. There are facts and it is possible to live a life—if not play a chess game!—without giving out opinions. Like in the perennial question:
‘ Did you hear about that Earthquake last night, or about that shooting the other day? What do you think about it?’
And it is possible for a human being to answer: ‘ It doesn’t matter what I think about it. The fact is that it happened. What I think is irrelevant. To condemn it or to condine it is to move away from the fact into a non-related fact. Why not instead try to understand that fact by moving slowly, from fact to fact, in a scientific manner, instead of from opinion to opinion, moving further and further away from the fact we try to examine.
It is possible to have a mind that is neutral, lacking a personal agenda and free of personal opinions. Otherwise, life is miserable.
Numbers don’t matter. It’s still not a fact. It’s a guess. But people confuse guesses with facts. They are not humble enough to admit they don’t really know.