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 did not miss his argument at all. I just gave additional information why if you were told chess is solved why that would not be 100% proof.
No, if a computer can talk and says it solved chess that would not be 100% proof that the computer actually solved chess.
There is no "proof" that anyone or any computer can give which would be adequate to many here. It would be very unreasonable to believe 100% chess is proven to be a draw [or a win] just because headlines come out that chess is solved.
It could be evidence but not 100% 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.
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.
That’s the point: you don’t know if it’s a proof.