Like, if I showed you moves and said it is the perfect game, there'd be no way to verify it.
So in some kind of ultimate sense, the proof only exists in the mind of God. That sort of thing.
I mean, ok.
But if we cataloged all the positions (like a 32 man endgame tablebase) and for all of white's first moves he computer said "it is a draw" I would believe chess is a draw, and I would call it proof.
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.
Which is not there and will never be there. Even if it comes out chess is solved--this would not at all mean that there is 100% proof chess is solved.
Yes. It would.
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.
We just want proof when someone claims they’ve proved it.
Tablebases have shown mating nets that are hundreds of moves long, that no human nor the most powerful computers can hope to find.
The ENTIRE argument boils down to a single question, whether or not there is an unimaginably long mating net from the starting position. How often humans and computers draw doesn’t answer that question.
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.
Because of the estimated dates of the earliest located manuscripts? How do you make that connection? Assuming the the earliest written manuscripts were found, and that they are accurately dated, are their any other possibilities for the time discrepancy than "someone just decided to make stuff up"?
Personally, I don't make that connection. But it is a reasonable defense mechanism to employ.
There were oral traditions first. Over time, some were written down. What we end up with is hearsay of hearsay of hearsay.
Does that mean God didn't author the Bible or that the Bible is not 100% true? No.
Does it mean the origins of Christianity appear mundane, and exactly what we would expect from a man made religion? Yes.
Nope. Saying that if a forced win were possible someone would have already done it and become a multimillionaire is not *evidence*, Ponz. It's not even a credible *opinion*.
Correct. It’s nothing more than a bald assertion. IF a perfect game was ever played nobody can possibly know it happened.
It doesn’t matter how logical one gets: when shown how ridiculous his statements are, Ponz will ultimately brush it off with :
’You.don’t have enough chess knowledge to understand what I’m saying.’
Then, somehow that amazing chess knowledge which he brags about preserving ( despite being physically sick ) finds a way of manifesting rather quickly: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 draw agreed is a perfect game!
Who are you to say it’s not perfect? If only you had his amazing chess knowledge you would see it immediately that those 5 moves are perfect and that game is perfect in every way.
If only you could have his amazing chess knowledge, knowledge which points towards such a perfect game, along with hundreds of others.
Although the one above is enough to determine state of mind of such an individual.
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.
We just want proof when someone claims they’ve proved it.
Tablebases have shown mating nets that are hundreds of moves long, that no human nor the most powerful computers can hope to find.
The ENTIRE argument boils down to a single question, whether or not there is an unimaginably long mating net from the starting position. How often humans and computers draw doesn’t answer that question.
I agree.
I'm just giving a nod to ponz's argument that there is a lot of evidence, and in something like a court case when there is preponderance of evidence it can be enough to make a court ruling.
I'm also trying to give a reminder that people aren't disagreeing with him that there is evidence, people disagree with him on the basis of there is no proof.
Funny, I am not claiming that the Bible is 100% true. Not sure why you would even bring that up.
You said witnessing miracles might compel faith.
I said we have reason to doubt that any miracles have ever been witnessed.
I do this by challenging the Bible's infallibility.
Whether or not you claim or believe in its infallibility is irrelevant.
I mean, sure, it's tangential, but a separate topic
...
Just like this whole draw business. It's not the OP's topic.
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.
Which is not there and will never be there. Even if it comes out chess is solved--this would not at all mean that there is 100% proof chess is solved.
Yes. It would.
He means that in order to verify the proof it would take more than your remaining years here on Earth!
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.
Which is not there and will never be there. Even if it comes out chess is solved--this would not at all mean that there is 100% proof chess is solved.
Yes. It would.
He means that in order to verify the proof it would take more than your remaining years here on Earth!
Yes, to verify the proof would take more than your remaining years here on earth.
BUT just because somebody or some news organization says that chess has been solved--DOES NOT MEAN it has been solved. There is a chance that it has not been solved.
It certainty would not be 100% proof that chess has been solved because someone or some people say it has been solved.
If headlines come out tomorrow that chess has been solved--would you
really believe chess has been solved??? Would you really believe 100% that chess has been solved??
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.
Which is not there and will never be there. Even if it comes out chess is solved--this would not at all mean that there is 100% proof chess is solved.
Yes. It would.
He means that in order to verify the proof it would take more than your remaining years here on Earth!
Yes, to verify the proof would take more than your remaining years here on earth.
BUT just because somebody or some news organization says that chess has been solved--DOES NOT MEAN it has been solved. There is a chance that it has not been solved.
It certainty would not be 100% proof that chess has been solved because someone or some people say it has been solved.
If headlines come out tomorrow that chess has been solved--would you
really believe chess has been solved??? Would you really believe 100% that chess has been solved??
The threshold of justified belief is a separate topic from the threshold of proof.
If a 32 piece EGTB existed, chess would be solved whether or not anyone believed in it.
Funny, I am not claiming that the Bible is 100% true. Not sure why you would even bring that up.
You said witnessing miracles might compel faith.
I said we have reason to doubt that any miracles have ever been witnessed.
I do this by challenging the Bible's infallibility.
Whether or not you claim or believe in its infallibility is irrelevant.
I mean, sure, it's tangential, but a separate topic
...
Just like this whole draw business. It's not the OP's topic.
Do you have an reason to believe? Any at all?
A reason to believe in what?
Higher powers? Sure.
Fairy tale characters? No. None at all.
But my comment was not about convincing anyone that such miracles did occur, if you had witnessed the blind receive sight, the deaf hear, the paralyzed walk again, the hungry fed, the dead raised .... and much much more, would it be reasonable to say that you would believe?
The blind see all the time.
Thanks science.
But my comment was not about convincing anyone that such miracles did occur, if you had witnessed the blind receive sight, the deaf hear, the paralyzed walk again, the hungry fed, the dead raised .... and much much more, would it be reasonable to say that you would believe?
But yes, if I witnessed all that, it would be reasonable for me to have faith in various stuff I would otherwise call garbage.
What do you mean by "higher powers"?
There's a lot we don't understand about the universe / reality itself.
Heck, there's a lot we don't even understand about ourselves.
So I'm willing to entertain the idea of powers greater than human comprehension existing "out there somewhere" so to speak. (Or even right here on earth.)
Yeah, a dude heals 1 guy's blindness 2000 years ago and that's much more than modern medicine healing (or preventing the sickness) of millions every. single. day.
Every day.
But it's not a contest, and belief in God shouldn't be predicated on the rewards you'll receive.
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.
Which is not there and will never be there. Even if it comes out chess is solved--this would not at all mean that there is 100% proof chess is solved.
Yes. It would.
He means that in order to verify the proof it would take more than your remaining years here on Earth!
Yes, to verify the proof would take more than your remaining years here on earth.
BUT just because somebody or some news organization says that chess has been solved--DOES NOT MEAN it has been solved. There is a chance that it has not been solved.
It certainty would not be 100% proof that chess has been solved because someone or some people say it has been solved.
If headlines come out tomorrow that chess has been solved--would you
really believe chess has been solved??? Would you really believe 100% that chess has been solved??
If a forced mating sequence would be shown then it’s not a matter of belief. An engine has solved chess, is the statement. Which means it has exhausted all the variants. That means it investigated everything, up and down, left and right.
So until someone can draw or beat this engine I would consider it a fact. It should be extremely easy for this super-engine to beat everyone since it would immediately see where an opponent’s move leads...and actually prove it. It would be a piece of cake.
Something like this: after the first few moves you make a move and it tells you: ‘with best play this will result in you losing significant material, at first, after which the mate is imminent even for a lower rated player.’.The more you play the more precise it becomes in telling you exactly what’s gonna happen. That’s because you won’t hit the best moves ( which prolong your resistance the most ), so there are too many ways to go wrong to tell you exactly how you’re going to lose. It depends on what errors you commit.
So until someone can draw it, it is a fact. It’s not an absolute proof, but I wouldn’t doubt it either, especially if match after match it crushes any opponent—human or engine—left and right, with a huge, observable, difference in class.
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.
Which is not there and will never be there. Even if it comes out chess is solved--this would not at all mean that there is 100% proof chess is solved.
Yes. It would.
He means that in order to verify the proof it would take more than your remaining years here on Earth!
Yes, to verify the proof would take more than your remaining years here on earth.
BUT just because somebody or some news organization says that chess has been solved--DOES NOT MEAN it has been solved. There is a chance that it has not been solved.
It certainty would not be 100% proof that chess has been solved because someone or some people say it has been solved.
If headlines come out tomorrow that chess has been solved--would you
really believe chess has been solved??? Would you really believe 100% that chess has been solved??
If a forced mating sequence would be shown then it’s not a matter of belief. An engine has solved chess, is the statement. Which means it has exhausted all the variants. That means it investigated everything, up and down, left and right.
So until someone can draw or beat this engine I would consider it a fact. It should be extremely easy for this super-engine to beat everyone since it would immediately see where an opponent’s move leads...and actually prove it. It would be a piece of cake.
Something like this: after the first few moves you make a move and it tells you: ‘with best play this will result in you losing significant material, at first, after which the mate is imminent even for a lower rated player.’.The more you play the more precise it becomes in telling you exactly what’s gonna happen. That’s because you won’t hit the best moves ( which prolong your resistance the most ), so there are too many ways to go wrong to tell you exactly how you’re going to lose. It depends on what errors you commit.
So until someone can draw it, it is a fact. It’s not an absolute proof, but I wouldn’t doubt it either, especially if match after match it crushes any opponent—human or engine—left and right, with a huge, observable, difference in class.
Naa, it would still be a proof. Even if no one knew it existed.
Like I said earlier the threshold for justified belief and the threshold for proof are two different things.
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.
Which is not there and will never be there. Even if it comes out chess is solved--this would not at all mean that there is 100% proof chess is solved.
Yes. It would.
He means that in order to verify the proof it would take more than your remaining years here on Earth!
Yes, to verify the proof would take more than your remaining years here on earth.
BUT just because somebody or some news organization says that chess has been solved--DOES NOT MEAN it has been solved. There is a chance that it has not been solved.
It certainty would not be 100% proof that chess has been solved because someone or some people say it has been solved.
If headlines come out tomorrow that chess has been solved--would you
really believe chess has been solved??? Would you really believe 100% that chess has been solved??
The threshold of justified belief is a separate topic from the threshold of proof.
If a 32 piece EGTB existed, chess would be solved whether or not anyone believed in it.
You missed his argument: would you trust a computer telling you it has solved chess? Because it would take way, way, way too long for a human to look at all the games it went through...
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.
Which is not there and will never be there. Even if it comes out chess is solved--this would not at all mean that there is 100% proof chess is solved.
Yes. It would.
He means that in order to verify the proof it would take more than your remaining years here on Earth!
Yes, to verify the proof would take more than your remaining years here on earth.
BUT just because somebody or some news organization says that chess has been solved--DOES NOT MEAN it has been solved. There is a chance that it has not been solved.
It certainty would not be 100% proof that chess has been solved because someone or some people say it has been solved.
If headlines come out tomorrow that chess has been solved--would you
really believe chess has been solved??? Would you really believe 100% that chess has been solved??
The threshold of justified belief is a separate topic from the threshold of proof.
If a 32 piece EGTB existed, chess would be solved whether or not anyone believed in it.
You missed his argument: would you trust a computer telling you it has solved chess? Because it would take way, way, way too long for a human to look at all the games it went through...
I address his argument directly by saying he's talking about belief and not proof.
I address it even earlier on the previous page
Like, if I showed you moves and said it is the perfect game, there'd be no way to verify it.
So in some kind of ultimate sense, the proof only exists in the mind of God. That sort of thing.
I mean, ok.
But if we cataloged all the positions (like a 32 man endgame tablebase) and for all of white's first moves he computer said "it is a draw" I would believe chess is a draw, and I would call it proof.
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.
Which is not there and will never be there. Even if it comes out chess is solved--this would not at all mean that there is 100% proof chess is solved.