Will computers ever solve chess? - Chess Forums - Page 304

ptd570 · 2014-01-22T11:57:20-08:00

Will there ever be a computer strong enough to solve chess to the point where white uses its half tempo advantage to always beat black no matter what moves black plays (in otherwords the same computer can never win with black even after a thousand random games against itself) I beleive one day the

ponz111

Jul 7, 2018

0

#6061

btickler wrote: ponz in red

troy7915 wrote:

Grandmasters cannot solve chess, try or not try, consciously or not consciously. So the point of what grandmasters do or not do, hidden agenda or not, is not related to the question of solving chess. note: I never said grandmasters could solve chess. In fact I mentioned they could not solve chess. If this is supposed to point to me you are using "strawman".

Remove this whole argument completely, I never argued that grandmasters could solve chess, in fact I mentioned they could not solve chess.

what they assume, what they think, what they know, what they believe, how confident they are—it is irrelevant. NO it is not irrelevant. You have about 1600 grandmasters with hundreds of years of studying chess and playing chess at a high level--what they believe about chess is quite relevant. This is an example of misquoting me and then trying to rule out one of my pieces of evidence.

Scratch it out.

It's relevant in pointing out Ponz's lack of logical thought. Even his *bogus* evidence does not hold up to the most basic scrutiny.The evidence was and is good. Attempts to misquote me are disingenuous.

By the way I never said or implied that grandmasters have a hidden agenda either--this is another example of "strawman"

Preggo_Basashi

Jul 7, 2018

0

#6062

ponz111 wrote:

Preggo_Basashi wrote:ponz in blue

Ponz, we already know the evidence points to chess being a draw.

You're arguing with the wind. Actually there are people on here who have argued that every one of my pieces of evidence do not point to chess being a draw.

No Ponz, they argue that none of your pieces of evidence PROVE chess is a draw.

And before you tell me you're not saying it's proof.

ponz111 wrote:

Preggo_Basashi wrote:ponz in blue

I take my evidence as proof that chess is a draw.

Boom, right there, you said it.

If you just (consistently) admit there is no proof, then this argument wouldn't exist.

(Both quotes are from page 397 post #7934)

Preggo_Basashi

Jul 7, 2018

0

#6063

s23bog wrote:

Who would not be convinced of Jesus' divinity if even half of the stuff claimed of him were witnessed?

Who would be convinced? Practically no one in Jesus's time believed it. Least of all the Jews, who knew old testament prophecy better than anyone.

So Christianity was a small crazy cult for a few 100 years. Basically until Constantine, among other things, set Jesus' birthday celebration the same as pagan gods (the winter solstice).

Religions don't get popular because of evidence, they get popular because of the fundamentally flawed nature of the human mind.

DiogenesDue

Jul 7, 2018

0

#6064

Plus, Christianity got a boost from Paul, who was not even an apostle and who never met Jesus. They had to wedge him into the bible by shining a ray of light from the heavens down on him to give some kind of rationalization for why he was as powerful as Peter in a religion he did not create...

Anyway, enough of that, it's not a religious discussion.

ponz111

Jul 7, 2018

0

#6065

Preggo_Basashi wrote:

ponz111 wrote:

Preggo_Basashi wrote:ponz in blue

Ponz, we already know the evidence points to chess being a draw.

You're arguing with the wind. Actually there are people on here who have argued that every one of my pieces of evidence do not point to chess being a draw.

No Ponz, they argue that none of your pieces of evidence PROVE chess is a draw.

And before you tell me you're not saying it's proof.

ponz111 wrote:

Preggo_Basashi wrote:ponz in blue

I take my evidence as proof that chess is a draw.

Boom, right there, you said it.

If you just (consistently) admit there is no proof, then this argument wouldn't exist.

(Both quotes are from page 397 post #7934)

I have always said that one piece of my evidence does not in itself prove chess is a draw.

I have always stated that all my pieces of evidence point the same way but that one piece of evidence does not prove chess is a draw.

However regarding circumstantial evidence if you have enough circumstantial evidence and it all points the same way--that is often proof. In this case I believe there is enough circumstanial evidence that taken together proves chess is a draw.

Preggo_Basashi

Jul 7, 2018

0

#6066

ponz111 wrote:

Preggo_Basashi wrote:

ponz111 wrote:

Preggo_Basashi wrote:ponz in blue

Ponz, we already know the evidence points to chess being a draw.

You're arguing with the wind. Actually there are people on here who have argued that every one of my pieces of evidence do not point to chess being a draw.

No Ponz, they argue that none of your pieces of evidence PROVE chess is a draw.

And before you tell me you're not saying it's proof.

ponz111 wrote:

Preggo_Basashi wrote:ponz in blue

I take my evidence as proof that chess is a draw.

Boom, right there, you said it.

If you just (consistently) admit there is no proof, then this argument wouldn't exist.

(Both quotes are from page 397 post #7934)

I have always said that one piece of my evidence does not in itself prove chess is a draw.

I have always stated that all my pieces of evidence point the same way but that one piece of evidence does not prove chess is a draw.

However regarding circumstantial evidence if you have enough circumstantial evidence and it all points the same way--that is often proof. In this case I believe there is enough circumstanial evidence that taken together proves chess is a draw.

Lots of circumstantial evidence can prove guilt in a court case, but not in a strict sense (mathematics).

It's reasonable to go about our lives behaving as if perfectly played chess is a draw (e.g. when doing analysis) but we can't know for sure until all the positions are cataloged (32 man EGTB).

Preggo_Basashi

Jul 7, 2018

0

#6067

s23bog wrote:

Preggo_Basashi wrote:

s23bog wrote:

Who would not be convinced of Jesus' divinity if even half of the stuff claimed of him were witnessed?

Who would be convinced? Practically no one in Jesus's time believed it. Least of all the Jews, who knew old testament prophecy better than anyone.

So Christianity was a small crazy cult for a few 100 years. Basically until Constantine, among other things, set Jesus' birthday celebration the same as pagan gods (the winter solstice).

Religions don't get popular because of evidence, they get popular because of the fundamentally flawed nature of the human mind.

His disciples witnessed quite a bit. Perhaps not all of them witnessed as much as half.

Especially considering the gospels were written 3 to 5 generations after Jesus had already died...

Preggo_Basashi

Jul 7, 2018

0

#6068

btickler wrote:

They had to wedge him into the bible by shining a ray of light from the heavens down on him

lol

Preggo_Basashi

Jul 7, 2018

0

#6069

And even though chess.com hates religion, it's not such a bad comparison.

e.g. it's reasonable to go about our lives behaving as if God (at least the God of a specific religion) doesn't exist, even though we can't ever prove it.

So functionally atheist, but not philosophically / gnosticly atheist.

So yeah, we're functionally "chess is a draw" players, but we're not mathematically "chess is a draw" players.

phillidor5949

Jul 7, 2018

0

#6070

Perhaps it is most unreasonable to go about our lives in the manner described [directly above].
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_Wager&oldid=849145093

Preggo_Basashi

Jul 7, 2018

0

#6071

phillidor5949 wrote:

Perhaps it is most unreasonable to go about our lives in the manner described.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_Wager&oldid=849145093

Sometimes philosophical arguments are really deep. After reading them, you have to think about it for a while. I mean days, weeks, etc. to really understand what the author is getting at.

...

But not with Pascal's wager. It's a joke... I mean... it's soooo bad.

Not as bad as Anselm's ontological argument, but still, pretty bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Anselm

Preggo_Basashi

Jul 7, 2018

0

#6072

ilovesmetuna wrote:

and if chess is a draw, only a bunch of lunatics would be bothered with it.

Welcome to the madhouse lol

Preggo_Basashi

Jul 7, 2018

0

#6073

s23bog wrote:

Preggo_Basashi wrote:

s23bog wrote:

Preggo_Basashi wrote:

s23bog wrote:

Who would not be convinced of Jesus' divinity if even half of the stuff claimed of him were witnessed?

Who would be convinced? Practically no one in Jesus's time believed it. Least of all the Jews, who knew old testament prophecy better than anyone.

So Christianity was a small crazy cult for a few 100 years. Basically until Constantine, among other things, set Jesus' birthday celebration the same as pagan gods (the winter solstice).

Religions don't get popular because of evidence, they get popular because of the fundamentally flawed nature of the human mind.

His disciples witnessed quite a bit. Perhaps not all of them witnessed as much as half.

Especially considering the gospels were written 3 to 5 generations after Jesus had already died...

What does that have to do with anything?

You're saying witnessing miracles would compel faith.

I'm saying perhaps none of them witnessed anything at all.

phillidor5949

Jul 7, 2018

0

#6074

"Chess is life." - Bobby Fischer
Sure, I'd have loved to see this thread maintain an, um..., more narrowly focused adherence to the original post. But, I'll tell you what: Seeing the Bible pulled into this discussion, it opened up a interesting angle of thought for me.
Years ago, I was more apt to beLIEve it was a collection of goat herder tales, not too relevant to answering the questions that I was interested in answering.
Today, I enjoy giving ear to the notion that this reality is of a fractal nature, perhaps based on a Biblical script [see also Simulation Theory]. Or the powers that be use it as a script. Look around.
Or, nothing exploded one day for no reason and produced everything, including chess. And all this order that I see around me is directly and causally linked to the aftermath and chaos of a massive explosion, i.e. Big Bang explosion. Someone, somewhere (not me) is laughing, I think.

So, this line of thought proceeds: if chess is life, and life is of a fractal, Biblical nature then... Jesus [WHITE] wins? Dark forces would want one to believe certain things regarding the nature of reality, and thereby to deny godliness [random, chaos, nihilism, DRAW].

It certainly seems pretty likely that chess is a draw but I'll probably never loose interest in looking for a forced win. [Here's my analysis of Berliner's System: http://oeco.hopto.org/mediawiki/index.php/Berliner,_Hans_-_The_System ]
I'll keep my heart and mind open to these and other questions [Isaiah 28:9] because as I learn, the more that I 'know that I know', the extent of my known ignorance increases even more (I know that I do not know). And the more I also learn about that which I thought I knew was, in fact, wrong.

Preggo_Basashi

Jul 7, 2018

0

#6075

phillidor5949 wrote:

nothing exploded one day for no reason and produced everything, including chess.

Believing in higher powers is fine.

Believing man made religions is... depressingly stupid.

I was raised Christian. I went to Sunday school once a week at church AND attended a religious jr high and high school where Bible class was 5 days a week and mandatory for every year. I've listened to Baptist preachers give sermons in crowded little churches with nothing but folding chairs, and memorized Catholic Catechism.

Maybe you started out the other way. Maybe your parents were atheists and now it's later in your life and you find religion interesting. That's fine. My point is I've heard it all, and my mind is made up. I've already had loooooong discussions online on this topic. Including on this site (in the open discussion group).

ponz111

Jul 7, 2018

0

#6076

It is really impossible to know 100% that chess is a draw.

If the news comes out today that chess has been solved--that would not prove chess is a draw.

Maybe if there is a all knowing God and He decided to let humanity know chess is a draw--that would go a ways towards proving chess is a draw.

And regarding all those who like to pick on me because I am old...I know I am old--this means my play of chess is less than it used to be but I still retain my knowledge of chess.

And I know I am old and do not like to be old but harping on it just PISSES ME OFF [a little]

Preggo_Basashi

Jul 7, 2018

0

#6077

ilovesmetuna wrote:

hey i think i might get interested in the superstition of evolution ..... NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hahaha!!

hey look!! somebody thinks its a science! and not based in faith!

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/the-science-of-evolution-no-politics-or-religion

hahaha!!

I have tons of posts in that topic too (not under this account, which is only ~2 weeks old).

Preggo_Basashi

Jul 7, 2018

0

#6078

ponz111 wrote:

It is really impossible to know 100% that chess is a draw.

If the news comes out today that chess has been solved--that would not prove chess is a draw.

Maybe if there is a all knowing God and He decided to let humanity know chess is a draw--that would go a ways towards proving chess is a draw.

And regarding all those who like to pick on me because I am old...I know I am old--this means my play of chess is less than it used to be but I still retain my knowledge of chess.

And I know I am old and do not like to be old but harping on it just PISSES ME OFF [a little]

I apologize for the disrespect. Really. I don't like it.

We're all headed that way, and you don't deserve the unkind words, so I'm sorry.

I still say chess is not proven to be a draw though

ponz111

Jul 7, 2018

0

#6079

Thank you, I really do not mind so much and my posting #8050 was my little joke!

Preggo_Basashi

Jul 7, 2018

0

#6080

Well, I still remember making an unkind post related to your age, and even if you don't mind, I felt bad about it.

Anyway, your evidence is very good, and I agree chess is a draw with best play, it's just the nay sayers here want the ultimate, basically unreachable, highest standard of proof.