On opinion expressed as an opinion is ok. A belief expressed as a belief—no big deal.
An opinion expressed as a fact—not ok. A belief presented as a fact—also not ok.
Will computers ever solve chess?
Sort:
s23bog wrote:
troy7915 escribió:
On opinion expressed as an opinion is ok. A belief expressed as a belief—no big deal.
An opinion expressed as a fact—not ok. A belief presented as a fact—also not ok.
There are often things said to deceive. Facts selectively pointed out to reinforce a pattern that you see, or would like to see.
Haha, I am also part of the same pattern!
Miaoiao wrote:
I am a 62 year old chess aficionado who plays since more than 40 years. I won corresondence tournaments in the 80th when there were no computers and one otb tournament in 2007 with 200 participants. I am a Math professor . Who are you? What argument of mine do you want to challenge?
The argument that you have any basis for talking about the honesty or qualifications of anyone here based on your short stint on this thread. I happen to agree with you, in general, but that doesn't mean I would have decided such on page 25 of the thread.
As for who I am, I guess you haven't really read much of this thread, which means your conclusion is even more suspect.
GMs are not qualified to comment on chess being a forced win or draw based purely on playing the game. Engine performance being what it is nowadays, having a GM make such a statement would be like a 7 year old trying to convince you that the Scholar's Mate is the best of all possible openings for white because you can mate in 3 moves...i.e. relatively meaningless considering the source.
But you say you are a Math professor...great, maybe you can help convince everyone what 10^46.7 really means, and why the notion of solving chess in our lifetimes is not really possible even with quantum computing et al...
Still not saying anything, at least not in English. Not sure you understood the distinction between belief, which nobody wants any proof of—it’s a belief after all—and fact, which dies need proof, but which doesn’t exist ( if one is to prove a fact, not a belief, which is meaningless, for the purposes of this convo). And the proof not existing, there’s nothing else to say.
May 26, 2018
0
#4926
The numbers of positions may be lower but they solved Checkers to a draw, so why would chess be any different?
s23bog wrote:
Troy is someone who has a facade to protect. I wouldn't let him worry you. He is just pretending to be something he is not.
Isn't that right, Troy?
Coming from someone who believes he met jesus 12 years ago, the stupidity coming from his mouth is understandable.
Moreover, you have no idea what normally lies behind a mask. As Shakespeare said, all the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players. Which means people are wearing masks. Now what is behind the mask? Shakespeare never answered that.
Miaoiao wrote:
Ponz, there might be another reason why GMs do not share their strong belief with us all the time. I think it is because they cannot prove they are right.
Nothing else was btw said by me and you here in this thread, but troy and other trolls do not acknowledge that.
This confused person still doesn’t understand that nobody is asking anybody to prove their belief. Only to acknowledge it’s a belief. Not interested in proving it or disproving a belief. Keep that demonstration to yourselves.
Perhaps some things are lost in translation.
s23bog wrote:
troy7915 escribió:
s23bog wrote:
troy7915 escribió:
On opinion expressed as an opinion is ok. A belief expressed as a belief—no big deal.
An opinion expressed as a fact—not ok. A belief presented as a fact—also not ok.
There are often things said to deceive. Facts selectively pointed out to reinforce a pattern that you see, or would like to see.
Haha, I am also part of the same pattern!
Yes, the type of deception was something I was describing about you, but in the third person non-familiar.
Don’t rush to say ‘yes’: you have no idea what I mean by ‘ I’m part of the same pattern’.
Icecream4crow wrote:
The numbers of positions may be lower but they solved Checkers to a draw, so why would chess be any different?
Huge difference between checkers and chess.
Haha, bingo! 1% or 99% makes no difference: it’s still a belief, still a non-fact. Nothing wrong with that, as long as one acknowledges it’s not a fact.
troy7915 wrote:
s23bog wrote:
Troy is someone who has a facade to protect. I wouldn't let him worry you. He is just pretending to be something he is not.
Isn't that right, Troy?
Coming from someone who believes he met jesus 12 years ago, the stupidity coming from his mouth is understandable.
Moreover, you have no idea what normally lies behind a mask. As Shakespeare said, all the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players. Which means people are wearing masks. Now what is behind the mask? Shakespeare never answered that.
In order to answer that, you’d have to remove all the masks, right? Including the religious mask which ‘met’ a dead nobody.
You missed it again. What I’m saying is that I’m not interested in beliefs and non-facts. That’s the crux of what I’m saying.
Confidence levels mean nothing. What matters are the facts. Despite high confidence levels, if there is a chance something is not a fact, then it’s a belief. It may turn out that one percent did become a fact, despite the strong belief.
In this case, the strong belief is supported by the facts of today, which tomorrow may easily be proven to be non-facts. Like the engines of tomorrow.
It doesn’t matter how Ponz is twisting it, there is no way to find perfect moves on both sides, in the beginning of the game and all the way to the middle game, except by counting all the moves. Which is not possible in our lifetime. Therefore, nothing can be said about perfect moves, from GMs, super-GMs, or engines of the present day.
It’s just a strong belief based on circular reasoning—invoking the theoretical result of the games, which cannot be predicted without best moves on both sides from the beginning, which cannot be deemed ‘best’ unless the theoretical result is known, which isn’t, because one cannot determine ‘best’ moves, and so one, in a circle. Do you catch the drift?
No, it is irrelevant and I’ve explained why, numerous times. The goal is to determine the result of a chess game with best moves for both sides, from start to finish. Get this first, this is the goal. Picking a random middle game position and starting from there is meaningless.
You have to start from the very first move. Please, proceed. Show us the best moves.
Miaoiao wrote:
Btickler, you are wrong. I read almost everything in this forum. I have no clue why my conclusion is suspect to you, the more that you claim you would agree with me. First, let me say that I gave a little bit of my credentials solely because you belittled me for the mere reason that you do not know me. Perhaps it would be really good that you say something about where you come from and what your occupation and chess rating are? Otherwise your argumentation would look as unfair.
Although there is an agreement between us about what most probaly the lawful outcome of chess is, there is a discrepancy of reasoning on how GMs come to that conclusion. GMs spend most of their working time at home with critical analysis, only since about two decades they use computers, but as a helping hand. The combination of the two is often called an android , which, for a superGM, can be much stronger than the best engine alone.
Only very small amount of working time is spent for the actual competition. The conclusion about chess being most probabl a draw is bases on thousands of hours of analysis , on knowledge of ressources od defence in difficult endgames, not just occuring in your own games, but in thousands of games of other chess players.
I asked who you were...because *you* belittled posters with nary a week commenting here...it took me months and years to get to where I call Vickalan out with prejudice based on his history, for example.
I'm a retired software development manager and a systems analyst/designer who has played chess longer than you, despite being a decade younger. I won my first chess tournament 35 years before you did. Does any of that matter in this context? I think not.
You made a disparaging remark about the posters here, and I asked who you were to make such a remark in your first weeks here. So, understand who threw the first stone. It was you. I merely called you on it.
As I said, I actually agree with your assessment in general, this thread is full of garbage and much of it comes from unqualified posters. Still, you would hardly know who they are yet at a level to render a blanket judgment. Chill.
P.S. Engine + player is called a Centaur. I'm not sure I have ever read "android" being used in that context.
troy7915 wrote:
Haha, bingo! 1% or 99% makes no difference: it’s still a belief, still a non-fact. Nothing wrong with that, as long as one acknowledges it’s not a fact.
A belief can be a fact or it can be a non fact.
I believe Jupiter is the largest planet in our solar system. Many people would say it is a fact that Jupiter is the largest planet in our solar system.
Some people believe the earth is flat. Most people would say it is not a fact that the earth is flat.
I believe that there are thousands of planets in our universe that we have not seen. It is also a fact that there are thousands of planets in our universe that we have not seen.
So, contrary was Troy thinks [believes] --beliefs can also be facts!
[this should be obvious to most people]
Three things I have come to realize. Troy is probably smarter than most people here and definitely smarter than me. Miaoiao thinks some degree or university position means something when actually it does not. And the third and most important thing is that when my husband says "honey, we are going to the lake next weekend" I'm sorry but computers solving chess will never compare to that.
Miaoiao wrote:
btickler, I said I play MORE than 40 years chess. So how can you possibly know you play longer than me :) ?
I agree with you that personal credentials should not matter, but you were asking me who I am, as if they would :) !
I did NOT belittle others, I persistently try to defend Ponz111 whose statements are always distorted here, and always by the same FEW people.
In doing that my statements were distorted, too, so I had to defend myself.
The only mistake I committed is that I confused the words Centaur and Android.
The funny thing is, your final conclusion is the same as mine, although you came to that conclusion on a different way (that I do not entirely follow, but we can discuss that).
I came to the conclusion that chess is a draw long before I started to read this forum. In fact, when I was young, I was under the impression that White wins in chess, if he plays correctly. This was due to my poor knowledge of chess in general at that time (and in particular about defendable end games with material deficit) and also because books about chess openings during the seventieth and even eightieth were too harsh in evaluating final positions of some variants: slightly worse positions of Black were evaluated as much worse.
In general, the art of defense among GMs was not yet on the same level as today .
I made the mistake that so many other young chess players commit until today: studying first excessively opening books, and not so much strategy and tactics of middle game, and endgames: the order should rather be the other way around.
It took me more than ten years to realize that my preference of White in many opening positions was often wishful thinking. As you may see now, I am not blinded by prejudices in this discussion.
The posters here get stuck due to dishonesty. And the dishonesty comes from a small group of people. I never said that about people in general in this forum, as you suggest.
I think you misunderstood. I agree with your conclusion about this thread, just not how you arrived there 
. I do not agree that chess is a forced draw or even very likely a forced draw. What I do believe is that engines built on human evaluation factors and using human opening books play chess like blunder-proof, fast-calculating humans. That is, entirely flawed chess with flawed valuations.
Alpha Zero, Leela, the new Komodo just announced, et al are the next level. They will evolve to destroy human beings in chess without learning any of our biases...so much so that Carlsen himself won't be able to commentate or even speculate credibly at TCEC engine play another decade or two down the line. Human beings will cease to keep up.
...and still, Chess will not be solved in our lifetimes. We probably won't even come close to estimating a reasonable amount of time the problem will take for decades, or even centuries.
Miaoiao wrote:
"The posters here get stuck due to dishonesty. And the dishonesty comes from a small group of people. I never said that about people in general in this forum, as you suggest."
versus:
"Qualification and honesty is low here. Exception: Ponz, Elroch, me and very few others."
Now pardon me, I am not a Math professor by trade...but assuming "here" means "in this thread", then this latter statement seems to create a logical set that includes every single poster on the entire thread outside the stated exceptions.
Being that theory is ever-evolving I'm going to say no. What stands true today, won't stand true tomorrow.