Will computers ever solve chess? - Chess Forums - Page 312

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

cobra91

Jul 10, 2018

0

#6221

btickler wrote:

cobra91 wrote:

[…]

Translation of all of the above: you're a pedantic tool. Shoo. Not worth the time...

It's my opinion, based on my systems/computer background, but I sure as heck don't need to shore it up for the likes of you...

I don't have time to play some little ego game with you...

This wasn't the best choice of exit strategy...

See posts:

In the last example given above, you responded to a comment that was already buried under ~3 pages of wholly unrelated material. To be honest, I was quite surprised that you even took the time to find and read that comment; the fact that you then went on to post a lengthy reply to it is rather telling.

btickler wrote:

As for a forced win from the starting position, I am already and always have been of the opinion that chess is more likely to be proven a draw than a forced win. Oh, you assumed otherwise? Time to do your own homework, I guess...like your assumption of my claiming 4000 rating, it's just in your head, so don't expect to find anything...

For starters:

btickler wrote: I haven't actually said that anything is useless trash, but it does seem quite obvious that at some threshold, whether now or later on when they are 800-1200 ratings points past Carlsen or what have you, that engines will need to discard the assumptions inherent in human valuations.

^ (see post #7980 at https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/will-computers-ever-solve-chess?page=399)

It's too bad you were unable to back up this bold prediction of yours, once it was put to the test by actual research. Just to be clear: ~2800 + 1200 = ~4000, for those who do not understand how basic arithmetic works. Moving on...

btickler wrote:

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.

^ (see post #6476 at https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/will-computers-ever-solve-chess?page=324)

I won't even bother explaining how strong the implication of 4000-rated engines (in the near future, no less!) is in the above quotation. Instead, I'll simply point out that the highlighted sentence states in no uncertain terms that chess is not very likely to be a theoretically drawn game, in your (completely indefensible, as I've shown) opinion.

Oh, and as for "beating people over the head" with your purely speculative musings, here's a random sample of misinformation and condescending insults you've berated us with over the last 100+ pages:

vickalan

Jul 10, 2018

0

#6222

cobra91 wrote:

vickalan wrote:

(Re: perfect game of chess with 16 moves)…

(#1)

You didn't answer my question: In a theoretically drawn position, is White's goal to make the game as long as possible, as short as possible, or as difficult as possible for Black to defend (according to some formal definition of "difficult")? Unless your definition of perfect play is clarified, the question you're trying to ask remains ill-defined...

(#2)

Depending on how you choose your definitions, a game in which White offers a draw (on the first move) and Black accepts may be considered either (1) not a valid perfect game, (2) a valid perfect game, or (3) the only valid perfect game.

(#3)

There are also several formal settings where, in the context of provably perfect play, the 50 move rule is simply ignored altogether (for example, when constructing endgame tablebases, composing/evaluating endgame studies, and adjudicating ICCF games). This is because it is a practical tournament rule that has been revised multiple times over the past century, and is not a natural termination condition due to its effect on many otherwise winning/losing positions. Bottom line: you need to directly address the 50 move rule, one way or the other; if you don't, your question will continue to have more than one interpretation.

Finally, depending on your choice of conventions, a perfect game featuring a 4-fold or 5-fold repetition may or may not be possible, since it may or may not be guaranteed that one of the players will claim a draw as soon as a 3-fold repetition occurs. So, once again, your question is still ambiguous, and that won't change until you make some decisions.

Re #1:

White has latitude to play as he/she chooses. Black does too. The players are not aware of their opponent's infallibility, so even if the game becomes a theoretical draw, White and Black both continue to play to win. Players will often have a choice of moves, and this should be considered as a degree of freedom in the interest of seeking one or more perfect games that end in 16 moves.

Re #2:

Both players are not aware of their opponent's infallibility. So offering a draw when there is a chance to win or draw is not a perfect game. A player should only offer a draw if the player can only draw or lose.

Re #3:

The 50 move rule and three-fold repetition apply (one assumption that can be used). But in my view, anyone is free to choose their own assumptions and see if a proof can be formulated as to why such a game does or does not exist. Claude Shannon, Victor Allis, and others have studied chess even when others didn't pose formal problems. No need to wait for someone to formally pose a problem.

DiogenesDue

Jul 11, 2018

0

#6223

cobra91 wrote:

btickler wrote:

cobra91 wrote:

[…]

Translation of all of the above: you're a pedantic tool. Shoo. Not worth the time...

It's my opinion, based on my systems/computer background, but I sure as heck don't need to shore it up for the likes of you...

I don't have time to play some little ego game with you...

This wasn't the best choice of exit strategy...

I'm not making any exit. I'm just not going to spend a bunch of time engaging with you. It's fruitful only to a point, and when it becomes about answering anything purely to satisfy you, not worth it. Your goal here is purely antagonistic...re: just about everyone on this thread you are conversing with.

[...]

In the last example given above, you responded to a comment that was already buried under ~3 pages of wholly unrelated material. To be honest, I was quite surprised that you even took the time to find and read that comment; the fact that you then went on to post a lengthy reply to it is rather telling.

Those 3 pages were all produced within a day of each other...I know, you didn't bother to look, but you're effectively trying to tell me I care too much on a reply where you have done 10 times the legwork I have bothered with, and then missing the fact that I am actually responding within the same day or next day. I guess the fact that pages accumulate at different rates at various timeframes is tough to keep in mind. Ironically, it took you 2 days to write your scathing indictment of my replying 3 pages later...but within a day.

btickler wrote:

As for a forced win from the starting position, I am already and always have been of the opinion that chess is more likely to be proven a draw than a forced win. Oh, you assumed otherwise? Time to do your own homework, I guess...like your assumption of my claiming 4000 rating, it's just in your head, so don't expect to find anything...

For starters:

btickler wrote: I haven't actually said that anything is useless trash, but it does seem quite obvious that at some threshold, whether now or later on when they are 800-1200 ratings points past Carlsen or what have you, that engines will need to discard the assumptions inherent in human valuations.

^ (see post #7980 at https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/will-computers-ever-solve-chess?page=399)

It's too bad you were unable to back up this bold prediction of yours, once it was put to the test by actual research. Just to be clear: ~2800 + 1200 = ~4000, for those who do not understand how basic arithmetic works. Moving on...

Try again. My comment was in response to your BS characterization that engines would be reaching 4000 ratings almost immediately. My quoted comment says "later on" when the threshold is 800-1200. That means in 5 years, 10 years, or 25 years...whenever that threshold is reached. I also said "or what have you" at the end of my statement, so, clearly, a number tossed out, not a bold claim of researched certainty. So, comprehension is your problem in this case. Arithmetic doesn't even really enter into it, although your equating 800-1200 to 1200 is also reaching.

btickler wrote:

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.

^ (see post #6476 at https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/will-computers-ever-solve-chess?page=324)

I won't even bother explaining how strong the implication of 4000-rated engines (in the near future, no less! Where's your quote about "near future" from me? Funny how can find quotes in or out of context for pretty much everything else...just not for the stuffing of your straw man). ) is in the above quotation. Instead, I'll simply point out that the highlighted sentence states in no uncertain terms that chess is not very likely to be a theoretically drawn game, in your (completely indefensible, as I've shown) opinion.

Oh, and as for "beating people over the head" with your purely speculative musings, here's a random sample of misinformation and condescending insults you've berated us with over the last 100+ pages: Who's "us"?

[...]

I'm not going to bother to refute these individually. It's very clear in each case, though, that I'm engaged in refuting someone else's BS...not making my own pronouncements from a mountaintop.

You still seem to be suffering from this notion that I owe you something. I don't. Nor does anyone else here. You made a halfway decent post upon arrival in the thread, then have quickly devolved into tirades with everyone you have come across. Save something for your therapist. I say this to you as one of the 2-3 smartest people on this thread, by your own reckoning. Oops, not anymore, though...now you are determined to take me down. Thinking only people that agree with you are smart (or remain smart in this case) is a pretty solid sign of narcissism run amok.

Chill. Everyone doesn't have to think you are brilliant for you to live day to day...

cobra91

Jul 11, 2018

0

#6224

vickalan wrote:

cobra91 wrote:

You didn't answer my question: In a theoretically drawn position, is White's goal to make the game as long as possible, as short as possible, or as difficult as possible for Black to defend (according to some formal definition of "difficult")? Unless your definition of perfect play is clarified, the question you're trying to ask remains ill-defined...

White has latitude to play as he/she chooses. Black does too. The players are not aware of their opponent's infallibility, so even if the game becomes a theoretical draw, White and Black both continue to play to win. Players will often have a choice of moves, and this should be considered as a degree of freedom in the interest of seeking one or more perfect games that end in 16 moves.

First of all, in game-theoretic terms, it's impossible for a perfectly played game of chess to "become" a theoretical draw. Such a game would necessarily be either a theoretical draw from start to finish or a theoretical win for White/Black from start to finish.

Secondly, what exactly does "play to win" mean, in the context of a theoretically drawn position? Based on your specification that "the players are not aware of their opponent's infallibility", I assume that each side is attempting to do something like "maximize winning chances against potentially imperfect play". However, there's a problem: I don't believe a precise mathematical definition of such a concept has ever been proposed. If you have seen a proper formalization of perfect play versus a potentially imperfect opponent, then please share it - that would be a truly profound development.

vickalan wrote:

cobra91 wrote:

Depending on how you choose your definitions, a game in which White offers a draw (on the first move) and Black accepts may be considered either (1) not a valid perfect game, (2) a valid perfect game, or (3) the only valid perfect game.

Both players are not aware of their opponent's infallibility. So offering a draw when there is a chance to win or draw is not a perfect game. A player should only offer a draw if the player can only draw or lose.

Ah, but if a player makes a draw offer in a situation where only a draw or loss is possible, then they will be offering a draw to an opponent who can only draw or win... and so their draw offer will always be rejected! So in this case, your choice is equivalent to an outright ban on draws by agreement, which is a rather common convention in purely mathematical settings such as this.

vickalan wrote:

cobra91 wrote:

There are also several formal settings where, in the context of provably perfect play, the 50 move rule is simply ignored altogether (for example, when constructing endgame tablebases, composing/evaluating endgame studies, and adjudicating ICCF games). This is because it is a practical tournament rule that has been revised multiple times over the past century, and is not a natural termination condition due to its effect on many otherwise winning/losing positions. Bottom line: you need to directly address the 50 move rule, one way or the other; if you don't, your question will continue to have more than one interpretation.

Finally, depending on your choice of conventions, a perfect game featuring a 4-fold or 5-fold repetition may or may not be possible, since it may or may not be guaranteed that one of the players will claim a draw as soon as a 3-fold repetition occurs. So, once again, your question is still ambiguous, and that won't change until you make some decisions.

The 50 move rule and three-fold repetition apply (one assumption that can be used).

Okay. If the condition for one of these rules is met during the game, is it guaranteed that one of the players will immediately make the appropriate claim?

Note: There is a [very remote] chance that the game-theoretic value of chess is a "cursed win" for White. In this case, the decision on whether to enforce the 50 move rule would directly affect the outcome of a perfectly played game.

vickalan wrote:

But in my view, anyone is free to choose their own assumptions and see if a proof can be formulated as to why such a game does or does not exist. Claude Shannon, Victor Allis, and others have studied chess even when others didn't pose formal problems. No need to wait for someone to formally pose a problem.

Well, I do imagine (due to the incredibly diverse range of methods that mathematicians use, and have used, to arrive at proven results) there have been some important mathematical proofs that were formulated before the statement being proven had been properly defined; in fact, such proofs are often informally referred to as "derivations" in some mathematical circles.

However, it's important to realize that, regardless of whether a problem is formalized before or after its corresponding solution, no problem can ever be considered solved if it is not well-defined. So there's still no getting around it: at some point, a problem must be formally posed in order for anything of value to be achieved.

cobra91

Jul 11, 2018

0

#6225

btickler wrote:

cobra91 wrote:

[…]

See posts:

In the last example given above, you responded to a comment that was already buried under ~3 pages of wholly unrelated material. To be honest, I was quite surprised that you even took the time to find and read that comment; the fact that you then went on to post a lengthy reply to it is rather telling.

Those 3 pages were all produced within a day of each other...

I'm not sure you realize how dramatically the content of your posts has deteriorated since this conversation began. You've long since given up on trying to put together reasoned arguments with a realistic grounding in facts. And now, it's clear you've basically ceased all attempts to challenge, or even respond to, any evidence (such as the referenced posts above) that contradicts your statements. So now, you just cling to any detail of negligible significance that you can, hoping to achieve... something. It's actually kind of a shame, because you were a respected mainstay of this thread for such a long time.

btickler wrote:

cobra91 wrote:

btickler wrote:

As for a forced win from the starting position, I am already and always have been of the opinion that chess is more likely to be proven a draw than a forced win. Oh, you assumed otherwise? Time to do your own homework, I guess...like your assumption of my claiming 4000 rating, it's just in your head, so don't expect to find anything...

For starters:

btickler wrote: I haven't actually said that anything is useless trash, but it does seem quite obvious that at some threshold, whether now or later on when they are 800-1200 ratings points past Carlsen or what have you, that engines will need to discard the assumptions inherent in human valuations.

^ (see post #7980 at https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/will-computers-ever-solve-chess?page=399)

It's too bad you were unable to back up this bold prediction of yours, once it was put to the test by actual research. Just to be clear: ~2800 + 1200 = ~4000, for those who do not understand how basic arithmetic works. Moving on...

Try again. My comment was in response to your BS characterization that engines would be reaching 4000 ratings almost immediately. My quoted comment says "later on" when the threshold is 800-1200. That means in 5 years, 10 years, or 25 years...whenever that threshold is reached. I also said "or what have you" at the end of my statement...

What you actually said was that conventional engines "obviously" need to discard human valuations once a certain threshold is reached -- either now, when they are 500-600 rating points beyond human ability, or later on, when the gap inevitably grows to 800-1200 rating points. And as everyone knows, the process you described has already begun, so a minimum rating disparity of 800-1200 points should soon be within reach (since you did, after all, assume that engines of the more traditional variety would eventually reach that level).

This is starting to venture into "pathetic" territory, now. Going back a month or two, just think how mercilessly you would have torn some poor soul limb from limb if he ever tried to backpedal with such flimsy semantic quibbling as what's displayed in the above quote. You've already retreated from several "lines in the sand", and now you're scrambling to draw a new one that I won't dare to challenge.

btickler wrote:

cobra91 wrote:

btickler wrote:

As for a forced win from the starting position, I am already and always have been of the opinion that chess is more likely to be proven a draw than a forced win. Oh, you assumed otherwise? Time to do your own homework, I guess...like your assumption of my claiming 4000 rating, it's just in your head, so don't expect to find anything...

For starters:

btickler wrote:

I do not agree that chess is a forced draw or even very likely a forced draw...

^ (see post #6476 at https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/will-computers-ever-solve-chess?page=324)

I won't even bother explaining how strong the implication of 4000-rated engines (in the near future, no less!) is in the above quotation. Instead, I'll simply point out that the highlighted sentence states in no uncertain terms that chess is not very likely to be a theoretically drawn game, in your (completely indefensible, as I've shown) opinion.

Where's your quote about "near future" from me? Funny how can find quotes in or out of context for pretty much everything else...just not for the stuffing of your straw man

What is the point of responding to comments without at least addressing the facts they contain? You claimed to have never said that chess was not likely to be a theoretically drawn game, and I posted a comment of yours which proves that claim to be false. Simple as that.

Just for the record, though: You factually stated (without qualification) that your envisioned reality will have come to pass within a decade or two. That implies an expectation for it to be the case much sooner.

btickler wrote:

cobra91 wrote:

Oh, and as for "beating people over the head" with your purely speculative musings, here's a random sample of misinformation and condescending insults you've berated us with over the last 100+ pages:

I'm not going to bother to refute these individually. It's very clear in each case, though, that I'm engaged in refuting someone else's BS...not making my own pronouncements from a mountaintop.

It's a somewhat ironic coincidence that, when confronted with lazy, inaccurate, illogical, and sometimes even outright vulgar comments/replies, you seem to have unbounded amounts of time, energy, and determination to respond to and refute every last one of them; meanwhile, whenever you're faced with hard evidence of having been wrong, you just so happen to never have the time or inclination to properly address it.

Coincidences can be fascinating, sometimes.

btickler wrote:

You still seem to be suffering...

Save something for your therapist. I say this to you as one of the 2-3 smartest people on this thread, by your own reckoning. Oops, not anymore, though...

Yes -- you were (and probably still are) among the 2 or 3 smartest people posting in this thread. That's why it's unfortunate you had to let your ego get involved during what could have been an interesting debate. Defending one's ego is a slippery slope, and it's reduced your usually knowledgeable contributions to the level of a common internet troll (see post #8230 above for a good example of this phenomenon). In fact, for that very reason, this will be my last reply to you on the seemingly nonexistent topic currently being discussed.

cobra91

Jul 11, 2018

0

#6226

Preggo_Basashi wrote:

cobra91 wrote:

Preggo_Basashi wrote:

Yeah, but I have strong justification for it: your brain is isolated, and the function of DNA is to preserve itself...

Once again, you start with a premise that assumes the conclusion, and one which is lacking in evidence. There is strong evidence to support the claim that a function of DNA is self-preservation, but certainly none to suggest that self-preservation is its only function.

Species that don't pass on genes go extinct. What could be more logical than that?

Apparently, you either did not read my post carefully enough, or you simply did not understand it. I said there was strong evidence that one function of DNA is self-preservation. Your argument, however, does not justify the more simplified view that this is its sole purpose (in the context of human DNA, at least). There are plenty of people out there who have deliberately placed their lives in greater jeopardy than necessary at one time or another; there are even some who do so routinely. To explain these choices within the confines of your theory, it becomes necessary to broaden the definitions of terms like "selfishness" and "desires", but those new definitions won't be as easily supported by your DNA-based argument.

Preggo_Basashi wrote:

F*** you… it's about a million times more intellectual. So if you object I guess that says more about you than me.

Yes -- very intellectual, indeed.

troy7915

Jul 11, 2018

0

#6227

cobra91 wrote:

to let your ego get involved...Defending one's ego...

He thinks one and their ego are two separate things. That belief leads to the conclusion that there is some. measure of control, so one is caught in that battle, to keep the ego at bay.

We use the word ‘ego’ casually, without understanding what it really is. And control, a general human pattern of the human brain, causes the most mischief.

cobra91

Jul 11, 2018

0

#6228

troy7915 wrote:

cobra91 wrote:

troy7915 wrote:

... because apart from the fact that there is not much else to say about the topic of solving chess, it is superseded by something which affects everybody’s lives and upon which solving depends the very survival of this planet, at least in the short term.

All three statements contained in the above sentence are opinions, which in this case could not possibly be supported by anything apart from more opinions.

They are opinions to you, but facts to me...

You either see these facts or you don’t...

Alright, then -- let's list out these "facts":

"...there is not much else to say about the topic of solving chess..."
"...it is superseded by something [, this conversation,] which affects everybody's lives..."
"...and [this conversation,] upon which solving depends the very survival of this planet, at least in the short term."

Yes, I agree that these statements of yours are fundamental mathematical truths, and trivially provable. We just have to formalize an axiom to assert their truth, first.

In any case, you certainly got one thing right:

troy7915 wrote:

This is not a debate.

Truer words have never been spoken.

USArmyParatrooper

Jul 11, 2018

0

#6229

Beliefs versus Facts. To believe something is to accept the proposition. A fact is the truth of the proposition.

Generally when somebody states something as a fact they are claiming knowledge. Knowledge is true *and* justified belief. If what you claim to know turns out NOT to be true, you did not have knowledge of the truth. Now here’s the tricky part. If your belief is true but NOT justified, you still do not have knowledge.

For example; let’s say I see a jar full of pennies and despite not knowing how many pennies there are I claim to know there are an even number of pennies - because I’m wearing a green shirt and every time I wear a green shirt and count something the number comes out even. Now let’s say we count them and the number does come out even. Did I KNOW the number was even? No.

To summarize:

o Belief is the acceptance of a proposition.

o A Fact is something that is true whether or not you know about it or believe it.

o Knowledge is true and justified belief (both truth and sufficient justification are required to accurately claim knowledge)

troy7915

Jul 11, 2018

0

#6230

cobra91 wrote:

troy7915 wrote:

cobra91 wrote:

troy7915 wrote:

... because apart from the fact that there is not much else to say about the topic of solving chess, it is superseded by something which affects everybody’s lives and upon which solving depends the very survival of this planet, at least in the short term.

All three statements contained in the above sentence are opinions, which in this case could not possibly be supported by anything apart from more opinions.

They are opinions to you, but facts to me...

You either see these facts or you don’t...

Alright, then -- let's list out these "facts":

"...there is not much else to say about the topic of solving chess..."
"...it is superseded by something [, this conversation,] which affects everybody's lives..."
"...and [this conversation,] upon which solving depends the very survival of this planet, at least in the short term."

Yes, I agree that these statements of yours are fundamental mathematical truths, and trivially provable. We just have to formalize an axiom to assert their truth, first.

In any case, you certainly got one thing right:

troy7915 wrote:

This is not a debate.

Truer words have never been spoken.

It has nothing to do with the intellect, with math or something with any abstraction—seeing facts, that is. Introducing an axiom to have facts proven to you is just a wise-guy displaying the very workings of the ego he thinks he’s separate from and has control over it—being separate, that is. Apparently not, as he just displayed it through that wise-guy remark.

Nothing needs be proven to you, in this field of life, of relationships: you just have to look. Here, the intellect becomes a burden, all the past knowledge preventing one from looking.

No, it’s not a debate. Facts need no debating, sir. All you need is a clear look. But most of us are confused and see things partially, so we need proofs. And the only proof is in seeing the facts yourself. But as long as that ‘smart guy’ is there, at the very center of our being, seeing is not possible, and one instead want to look and ask for proof, rather than doing the discovery work themselves.

troy7915

Jul 11, 2018

0

#6231

USArmyParatrooper wrote:

Beliefs versus Facts. To believe something is to accept the proposition. A fact is the truth of the proposition.

Generally when somebody states something as a fact they are claiming knowledge. Knowledge is true *and* justified belief. If what you claim to know turns out NOT to be true, you did not have knowledge of the truth. Now here’s the tricky part. If your belief is true but NOT justified, you still do not have knowledge.

For example; let’s say I see a jar full of pennies and despite not knowing how many pennies there are I claim to know there are an even number of pennies - because I’m wearing a green shirt and every time I wear a green shirt and count something the number comes out even. Now let’s say we count them and the number does come out even. Did I KNOW the number was even? No.

To summarize:

o Belief is the acceptance of a proposition.

o A Fact is something that is true whether or not you know about it or believe it.

o Knowledge is true and justified belief (both truth and sufficient justification are required to accurately claim knowledge)

Too convoluted. There is one significant distinction: facts and what I think about facts. What I think about a fact is the part that doesn’t count, in the field of relationships, which includes the totality of life.

Let’s say I’m attached to my girlfriend. What I think about this attachment is irrelevant, the fact remains that I’m attached. No amount of opinions pro or against this fact will change it. I may resist it, justify it, fight it, accept it as natural, suffer, like the resulting suffering, but the fact remains intact: I’m still atached.

And what happens is that we get lost in opinions about facts and the facts are long gone from our undivided attention. We get stuck in opinions and beliefs about facts. Which opinions and beliefs then divide us and create tensions and conflicts.

The question then is, how do we stay with the facts? The obvious answer is ‘ drop the opinions’. Rather hard to do in a society that encourages us to be ‘opinionated’ from a young age.

Even though, assuming that someone is trying to drop their opinions, how is it to be done? Who am I, the entity who’s trying to drop an opinion? But for most of us it gets too complicated and we bail out: I’d rather solve a chess puzzle than give my ‘soul’ to answering these vital questions.

DiogenesDue

Jul 11, 2018

0

#6232

cobra91 wrote:

I'm not sure you realize how dramatically the content of your posts has deteriorated since this conversation began. You've long since given up on trying to put together reasoned arguments with a realistic grounding in facts. And now, it's clear you've basically ceased all attempts to challenge, or even respond to, any evidence (such as the referenced posts above) that contradicts your statements. So now, you just cling to any detail of negligible significance that you can, hoping to achieve... something. It's actually kind of a shame, because you were a respected mainstay of this thread for such a long time.

"I'm not sure you realize how dramatically the content of your posts has deteriorated since this conversation began."

This applies to you more than it would to me.

The only thing that has deteriorated is your continued attempts to force me to argue something I really don't care to argue. There's no way to prove a prediction like mine without watching it play out, so there would be no point. All I have really been doing is pointing out when you are mis-characterizing something I said, or "embellishing" what I said, or posting your assumptions of my intent or motivations as if they are fact. As for "giving up" because I refuse to get drawn into your internal quagmire...that would imply that I care enough about this tangent you've created to invest in it.

I told you that I don't care if you believe my prediction, you just steadfastly refused to believe it. I am not arguing with everyone about some claim I made. You would rather believe that you are forcing me back, soundly defeating me at every turn, and that I am crumbling ...I suggest you go back 6 months from now and read all this from the beginning, from the POV of someone who just doesn't care to engage with someone appearing out of left field in the manner in which you did.

[...]

What you actually said was that conventional engines "obviously" need to discard human valuations once a certain threshold is reached -- either now, when they are 500-600 rating points beyond human ability, or later on, when the gap inevitably grows to 800-1200 rating points. And as everyone knows, the process you described has already begun, so a minimum rating disparity of 800-1200 points should soon be within reach (since you did, after all, assume that engines of the more traditional variety would eventually reach that level).

I certainly did not. Traditional engines built on human derived valuations are basically tethered to the foundations they are built on. Why would you ever assume that I think traditional engines will ever reach 4000 rating (other than through decades of inflation 1-2 rating points at a time playing each other incestously)? It's not even logically consistent with my stated position.

This is starting to venture into "pathetic" territory, now.

Well, you've got that right...though I would have said yesterday after your previous post, not now.

Going back a month or two, just think how mercilessly you would have torn some poor soul limb from limb if he ever tried to backpedal with such flimsy semantic quibbling as what's displayed in the above quote.

Ahhh. Now we finally reach the kernel of truth in all this...

Sooo, it's not about being smart...you originally admired my posts because I "mercilessly" "tear poor souls limb from limb". Tearing people limb from limb on a forum is something you aspire to and feel you are good at...and I have disappointed you by not living up to your fighting expectations. Perhaps you see this whole exchange as some kind of letdown...that you came into the thread expecting to have a peer, to tear people apart side by side, and then to have the height of reasoned intellectual debate ourselves, like brothers-in-arms.

Sorry. I'm not interested. I don't "tear apart" posters for fun, or to feed my ego. I don't argue for arguing's sake. My ego is perfectly intact without such a crutch. I am only doing what I do here to combat literally years of faulty arguments repeated literally hundreds of times. That doesn't mean I have any inclination or need to engage every hothead that comes barreling into the thread. Nor does it mean I need to "tear apart" the Axis of Error or anyone else.

You've already retreated from several "lines in the sand", and now you're scrambling to draw a new one that I won't dare to challenge.

Am I? Is that what's happening? Have I drawn retreating lines in the sand, or have I simply corrected you when you tried to turn your assumptions into my intent/motivations?

What is the point of responding to comments without at least addressing the facts they contain? You claimed to have never said that chess was not likely to be a theoretically drawn game, and I posted a comment of yours which proves that claim to be false. Simple as that.

I see that you have some trouble differentiating between the sentiments expressed in something like "I don't think that chess is provable as a draw, or even that it it is 'very likely' chess is a draw" and "I think that chess is probably a draw". One is a response to someone else, and floats in the sphere of fantasy (chess is 99.9999% sure to be a draw), and the other is rational probability based on personal opinion. Maybe I needed to quote someone there, or maybe I needed to add another "very" for you to be able to discern a distinction. The thing is, though, I don't really care if you can see the distinction, ultimately. It's your job to understand context as long as I provide something reasonable.

Just for the record, though: You factually stated (without qualification) that your envisioned reality will have come to pass within a decade or two. That implies an expectation for it to be the case much sooner.

How does that follow? No, really...is your theory that every single person always puts forth/argues a watered down version of their actual position? Hmmm...for fear of perhaps being torn limb from limb? That would seem actually consistent with your slightly askew logic.

It doesn't imply anything beyond what it said. That's an assumption on your part. I don't have to hedge my bets on a prediction that I am not trying to claim is proven, or a foregone conclusion. That's all you.

It's a somewhat ironic coincidence that, when confronted with lazy, inaccurate, illogical, and sometimes even outright vulgar comments/replies, you seem to have unbounded amounts of time, energy, and determination to respond to and refute every last one of them; meanwhile, whenever you're faced with hard evidence of having been wrong, you just so happen to never have the time or inclination to properly address it.

Coincidences can be fascinating, sometimes.

It's not a coincidence at all. It's you. You are the variable in the equation that is different...you just refuse to see it. I am not dodging your points because I just can't handle them. I am holding you at arm's length until you stop yammering. Why would I bother to go through all the quotes you listed and refute them one by one, painstakingly going over the context and chosen language? You have a twisted idea of how important your posts are to me (I can only speak for me here). I am debating content here, and this side discussion has none of any value. By the same token, if Ponz just stopped saying this and that and Vickalan stopped pretending his diagrams meant anything and S23bog stopped returning to the same questions and musings that he put forth and were refuted eons ago...I would probably not have another word to say to any of them in this thread. Because I don't really care about beating the individuals down, I care about what the discussion is saying and what people are walking away with and spreading elsewhere. You don't see me following people around to other threads just to spew my hatred for them personally. You don't see me making serial sockpuppets to harass people because they have infuriated me. I don't want a world of "Kasparov has an IQ of 180", because it's just generally annoying to wade through a world of ignorance. What you seem to relish in is merely a byproduct, and not a particularly desirable one at that.

Yes -- you were (and probably still are) among the 2 or 3 smartest people posting in this thread. That's why it's unfortunate you had to let your ego get involved during what could have been an interesting debate. Defending one's ego is a slippery slope, and it's reduced your usually knowledgeable contributions to the level of a common internet troll (see post #8230 above for a good example of this phenomenon).

Not worth it. If you ever debate something I am invested in debating or defending, I will probably comment. I won't run around the thread matching your own investment level, which you might want to examine. It took me ~300 pages of the same stuff over and over to finally go back and do some more serious homework to show some people were full of it. Where's the buildup for this hit and run accident you are perpetrating? Why are you colliding with a half dozen posters your first week or two? I would have to speculate that you came into the thread already wound up somewhere else. Lord knows why or how you stayed silent for months reading this thread as you have stated took place. You don't seem like the type that could possibly hold your tongue that long...I'm sure I would not be alone in this opinion.

In fact, for that very reason, this will be my last reply to you on the seemingly nonexistent topic currently being discussed.

Great. You're finally getting it. You manufactured a non-existent topic/tangent and a one-sided discussion about my personal opinion (presented as such) that I was/am not really engaging in...then you tried to paint it as equivalent to my replies to years of discussion and hundreds of repeated arguments with claims of proof. It didn't work. It's the right of every human being to not engage with someone accosting them.

luckbird

Jul 11, 2018

0

#6233

who cares

vickalan

Jul 12, 2018

0

#6234

cobra91 wrote:

(#1)

...what exactly does "play to win" mean, in the context of a theoretically drawn position?...

(#2)

...If the condition for one of these rules is met during the game, is it guaranteed that one of the players will immediately make the appropriate claim?

(#3)

...Well, I do imagine (due to the incredibly diverse range of methods that mathematicians use, and have used, to arrive at proven results) there have been some important mathematical proofs that were formulated before the statement being proven had been properly defined; in fact, such proofs are often informally referred to as "derivations" in some mathematical circles.

However, it's important to realize that, regardless of whether a problem is formalized before or after its corresponding solution, no problem can ever be considered solved if it is not well-defined. So there's still no getting around it: at some point, a problem must be formally posed in order for anything of value to be achieved.

re #1:
Playing to win in a theoretically drawn position means a player at a minimum preserves the draw, but if the opponent makes a losing move then the player begins to play in a way to preserve the win. All strategies should be considered in the interest of learning if a perfect game exists that ends in 16 moves. Even an exhaustive analysis of the entire game tree to 16 moves should be considered.

re #2:

Not necessarily. They will do so only when it's in the interest of their prime goal.

re #3:

Good conversation and I agree completely. Using assumptions similar to what Shannon assumed, and if it is assumed that the problem is approached by a naive brute-force analysis, this should reduce the complexity of the problem (solving chess generally) from about 10^120 (the Shannon number) to about 10^48. I'm not saying that brute force is the only method to approach either of these problems. It's just one way to express the difference in complexity of these two problems.

pawn8888

Jul 12, 2018

0

#6235

I think you could say that, after a draw, black has 'won' because white started with an advantage and couldn't covert it into a win, Although I think someone said that before perhaps.

troy7915

Jul 12, 2018

0

#6236

We don’t know that for sure.

cobra91

Jul 12, 2018

0

#6237

vickalan wrote:

Playing to win in a theoretically drawn position means a player at a minimum preserves the draw, but if the opponent makes a losing move then the player begins to play in a way to preserve the win. All strategies should be considered in the interest of learning if a perfect game exists that ends in 16 moves. Even an exhaustive analysis of the entire game tree to 16 moves should be considered.

Understood -- you are using the "tablebase definition" of perfect play, essentially. Drawing moves are considered equally strong, while winning moves are ranked by how quickly they will lead to victory and losing moves are ranked by how long they will ultimately delay defeat.

vickalan wrote:

Not necessarily. They will do so only when it's in the interest of their prime goal.

Got it -- so when a draw may be claimed by one player, it is only claimed if that player cannot win via any series of legal moves. I suppose they would also claim such a draw in a theoretically lost position, but their opponent would have to err in order for the opportunity to arise.

Note that the FIDE Handbook includes 5-fold repetition and 75 move rules as well. I'll assume that, unless otherwise specified, you intend for these rules to be taken into account for the purposes of this question.

vickalan wrote:

Good conversation and I agree completely. Using assumptions similar to what Shannon assumed, and if it is assumed that the problem is approached by a naive brute-force analysis, this should reduce the complexity of the problem (solving chess generally) from about 10^120 (the Shannon number) to about 10^48. I'm not saying that brute force is the only method to approach either of these problems. It's just one way to express the difference in complexity of these two problems.

The problem's complexity is only reduced if a relatively short forced win is found for one side. Otherwise, we have to examine an enormous search space in order to determine the game-theoretic value, and of course this must be done before we can attempt to construct perfect games satisfying some criteria (in this case, the criteria would be game length).

With that being said, I'll try to analyze the problem anyway, albeit superficially. The probability of a forced win in 16 moves or less is absurdly remote (recall that according to your definition, a perfect player in a losing position will aim to stave off defeat for as long as possible), regardless of any disagreement we may have on exactly how low that probability might be. If no such win exists, then three possibilities remain:

Perfect play results in a win for White, but victory requires more than 16 moves to achieve. In this case, no 16-move perfect games would exist.
Perfect play results in a win for Black, but victory requires more than 16 moves to achieve. In this case, no 16-move perfect games would exist.
Perfect play results in a draw. In this case, a 16-move perfect game may or may not exist.

Let's look at case 3 above a little more closely. We've already ruled out draws by agreement (see post #8236, part 2), and a draw cannot be claimed under the 50 move rule until long after the 16th move of a game. The chance of a dead position or stalemate being achievable within 16 perfect moves seems negligible (this is based on common sense; hopefully you'll agree), which leaves us with 3-fold repetition as the only reasonable way for a 16-move perfect game to end. However, based on your definitions, there is no realistic scenario I can think of where any such draw would be claimed early on in the game; against "potentially imperfect play", there would seemingly always be hypothetical winning chances at that stage.

This brings us back to my earlier remark concerning 5-fold repetition. If you allow a 5-fold repetition to automatically terminate the game (as described in the FIDE Handbook), then the existence of a 16-move perfect game remains realistic. If not, then the odds against the existence of such a game are astronomical.

USArmyParatrooper

Jul 12, 2018

0

#6238

troy7915 wrote:

USArmyParatrooper wrote:

Beliefs versus Facts. To believe something is to accept the proposition. A fact is the truth of the proposition.

Generally when somebody states something as a fact they are claiming knowledge. Knowledge is true *and* justified belief. If what you claim to know turns out NOT to be true, you did not have knowledge of the truth. Now here’s the tricky part. If your belief is true but NOT justified, you still do not have knowledge.

For example; let’s say I see a jar full of pennies and despite not knowing how many pennies there are I claim to know there are an even number of pennies - because I’m wearing a green shirt and every time I wear a green shirt and count something the number comes out even. Now let’s say we count them and the number does come out even. Did I KNOW the number was even? No.

To summarize:

o Belief is the acceptance of a proposition.

o A Fact is something that is true whether or not you know about it or believe it.

o Knowledge is true and justified belief (both truth and sufficient justification are required to accurately claim knowledge)

Too convoluted. There is one significant distinction: facts and what I think about facts. What I think about a fact is the part that doesn’t count, in the field of relationships, which includes the totality of life.

Let’s say I’m attached to my girlfriend. What I think about this attachment is irrelevant, the fact remains that I’m attached. No amount of opinions pro or against this fact will change it. I may resist it, justify it, fight it, accept it as natural, suffer, like the resulting suffering, but the fact remains intact: I’m still atached.

And what happens is that we get lost in opinions about facts and the facts are long gone from our undivided attention. We get stuck in opinions and beliefs about facts. Which opinions and beliefs then divide us and create tensions and conflicts.

The question then is, how do we stay with the facts? The obvious answer is ‘ drop the opinions’. Rather hard to do in a society that encourages us to be ‘opinionated’ from a young age.

Even though, assuming that someone is trying to drop their opinions, how is it to be done? Who am I, the entity who’s trying to drop an opinion? But for most of us it gets too complicated and we bail out: I’d rather solve a chess puzzle than give my ‘soul’ to answering these vital questions.

What’s convoluted about? Your distinction isn’t a distinction. A fact is a fact regardless of what you, anyone else, or everyone together thinks.

You stick to facts by recognizing the difference between facts and opinions, and by sticking to sound evidence and epistemology.

And by knowing when to say “I don’t know.”

cobra91

Jul 12, 2018

0

#6239

Here's a brief summary of posts 7841, 7850, 7851, 7876, 7885, 7897, 7980, 8016, 8017, 8140, 8189, 8233, 8235, 8237, and 8245. To condense this as much as possible, I've replaced individual statements, individual supporting arguments, and/or individual pieces of supporting evidence with single letters (A, B, C, etc., skipping the letter 'I' for obvious reasons). Whenever a letter is used more than once, it represents exactly the same thing each time.

Anyone who doubts the accuracy of this summary can easily go back and read the posts listed above, which will confirm that what follows is essentially the same as what was said throughout the exchange. Alternatively, just ask me about anything you think might be incorrect, and I will happily copy and paste the full post(s) in question on the current page, allowing them to be easily viewed and compared with the versions given below.

Enjoy!

btickler: "A and B"
cobra91: "There's no evidence I'm aware of that supports A or B. There is even some evidence, such as C, which contradicts A. And for B to be true, we'd need to observe D (which hasn't happened)."
btickler: "Actually, E is evidence of A. And I'd argue that F would still create what I meant by B."
cobra91: "E is simply false, and G proves this; try again. I hope you don't intend to cite H, given the amount of evidence that H is irrelevant to discussions concerning A. As for F, that would be fundamentally different from what seemed to be implied by B; this is due to J."
btickler: "Well, okay; I acknowledge that neither E nor H constitutes valid evidence... but I predicted A long ago, and it will happen. K could definitely be true, as well, because of L. Regarding B, I didn't intend to make any strong claims when I said that. All that really meant was M."
cobra91: (avoids further mentions of B) "Here are some reasons to doubt the likelihood of A: N1, N2, N3, N4. Also, note that L is a faulty argument, since you failed to consider O. That's without mentioning the large amount of evidence, such as P and Q, which suggests that K is extremely unlikely."
btickler: (fails to address O, and tries to use an unsupported conjecture [A] to invalidate hard evidence [Q]) "Neither N1, N2, N3, nor N4 actually disproves A, so I don't have to give those points any more weight than I see fit, especially in light of H and R. And because of S, P is irrelevant; Q is irrelevant too, given A."
cobra91: (avoids responding to purely deflective statements) "You've already admitted that H does not constitute valid evidence. T would be valid evidence of A (if you could provide it), but R is merely evidence of U. As for S, this argument is completely flawed; there's at least one obvious counterexample which disproves the premise that S is based on."
btickler: (does not address any facts at all, this time) "Oh, I could provide far more rigorous evidence if I wanted to. I just won't because... well, I guess I'm not dumb enough to get tricked into it."
cobra91: "Then just concede the debate like a man, if it's really not that important. Don't waste your time making excuses that no one in their right mind would buy for even a fraction of a second."
btickler: (includes some meaningless insults) "You're a pedantic tool. I never bet anything, so I don't need to concede anything. I could easily refute your evidence if I had time. Plus, I've always said that chess is more likely to be a draw than a forced win, and I never said anything about 4000-rated engines. Go ahead and try to find examples of me saying those things and beating people over the head with it. It never happened, so you'll find nothing."
cobra91: "You've already invested countless hours into the following posts: V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, V6, V7, V8. You implied that the new methods in engine development being employed could quickly produce 4000-rated engines in the following quote: W. You stated that chess was not very likely to be a forced draw in the following quote: X. Finally, you berated people with your glorified opinions in all of the following: Y1, Y2, Y3, Y4, Y5, Y6, Y7, Y8, Y9, Y10, Y11, Y12."
btickler: (includes more meaningless insults) "V8 is a questionable example, since that response was posted within a day (and it took you two days to respond, once). As for W... well, that's not what I meant. I said 'later on' and 'what have you', which could mean anything. In Y1-Y12, I was just responding to other people's BS; it's just not worth it to refute each case individually."
cobra91: "There's no point in replying to a post that consists almost entirely of solid evidence with one that is 100% comprised of outright denials and insults. As the facts have already been laid out, there's also no reason for me to continue replying to you. By the way: W's meaning is determined by objective grammatical and logical analysis, not by your own personal interpretation."
btickler: (more meaningless insults and denials, along with a rather disturbing venture into fantasy)

troy7915

Jul 12, 2018

0

#6240