Just a side note: I never said "chess is 99.9999% sure to be a draw."
This is the type of misquote that is not helping...
Will computers ever solve chess?
Sort:
cobra91 wrote:
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)
You forgot this (quite recent) quote;
"In fact, for that very reason, this will be my last reply to you on the seemingly nonexistent topic currently being discussed."
Rookie mistake. Oh well.
Your context snipping and screenplay directions just serve to further highlight the futility of your original posts. The loony tunes alphabet variable replacements...geez, man, get a grip. Save yourself some time. It's over. Every post you keep adding just undermines any future credibility you might have that much more...
P.S. Not a post directed my way, but:
"Then just concede the debate like a man"
...underscores the same point I made yesterday. Stop pinning your self-worth and your masculinity on your ability to debate on the forum, and stop trying to judge others by your own male yardstick. I figured you for late 20s, but as time goes by you seem to be regressing to mid-teens.
Jul 12, 2018
0
#6244
A fact is that which is true irrespective of anyone’s knowledge or belief.
Opinions are personal appraisals, e.g. ice cream is delicious. Another definition is a belief or “best guess” based on insufficient evidence, e.g. “I don’t have proof but in my opinion the butler did it.”
Epistemology is the study of knowledge, and using epistemological methods you can largely (though not entirely) remove bias from the equation. It involves things like logical syllogisms and fallacies, inductive vs deductive reasoning, etc.
Jul 12, 2018
0
#6245
I take pride in the thought that I had a hand in changing the topic off whether or not chess is 100% for sure proven a draw.
To 8258:
You can largely remove bias..
That is the problem: is one different from the bias they are trying to remove? In other words, is the bias partial, or is it total? If it is not partial, the part of me who is trying to remove the bias is also part of the bias it’s trying to remove, so the very removal action perpetuates the bias. Now things are getting interesting.
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
I take pride in the thought that I had a hand in changing the topic off whether or not chess is 100% for sure proven a draw.
Pride is part of the bias discussed above.
Jul 12, 2018
0
#6248
I don't take pride in the word salad nonsense, but it's better than the same f*****g argument and refutation on repeat every. single. day.
Pride is pride, same bias. Frustration causing vulgar language is part of the same bias. What one likes and dislikes is also part of the bias. Is there any action of one’s part which is not biased?
Jul 12, 2018
0
#6250
Troy, I’ve actually seen you call out others for using established, named logical fallacies. THAT is epistemology.
If epistemology is not a pathway to truth then why do you use it?
Jul 12, 2018
0
#6251
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
I take pride in the thought that I had a hand in changing the topic off whether or not chess is 100% for sure proven a draw.
Troy or me? I don’t fling nonsensical word salads as a smoke screen. That’s a Jordan Peterson thing.
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
I take pride in the thought that I had a hand in changing the topic off whether or not chess is 100% for sure proven a draw.
Troy or me? I don’t fling nonsensical word salads as a smoke screen. That’s a Jordan Peterson thing.
I thought he meant the ongoing debate about chess being a draw, with some personal vendettas. Not our discussion about this parallel topic.
Jul 12, 2018
0
#6254
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
Naa, you're fine in my book para.
You too. Is that a horse or donkey?
Jul 12, 2018
0
#6255
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
Naa, you're fine in my book para.
You too. Is that a horse or donkey?
You might remember me better as a cat... or perhaps a poodle?
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
Troy, I’ve actually seen you call out others for using established, named logical fallacies. THAT is epistemology.
If epistemology is not a pathway to truth then why do you use it?
Logic can only go up to a point. In the field of life, which supersedes any other technical, limited field, logic is not enough to ‘get’ to truth. It has a limited scope In certain fields and probably you were referring to that.
But here, the logic may not exist to begin with. After all, great logical minds in their respective fields are behaving illogically in their daily lives, in inter-personal relations with others.
More than logic is needed. Namely, a direct experience.
Normally, our minds are very noisy, active, never resting, juggling through countless projections. And so in order to see things clearly, a quiet mind is needed. Only such a mind could have clarity.
So a decently smart brain can see the necessity of having such a quiet brain. And they have tried for thousands of years. Through practice, one way or another. But it cannot be practiced, because then the practice is another form of noise, so in practicing silence the noisy mind is strengthened.
Jul 12, 2018
0
#6257
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
Naa, you're fine in my book para.
You too. Is that a horse or donkey?
I used to post a lot in the evolution topic / in open discussion.
s23bog wrote:
ponz111 wrote:
Just a side note: I never said "chess is 99.9999% sure to be a draw."
This is the type of misquote that is not helping...
I am not so sure it matters what you think. At least, not in regards to actually solving chess. You are just the squeak in the gears of mankind that is indicative of a problem slowing things down.
So you go off subject rather than to respond to what I said. This reinforces it was a misquote.
cobra91 wrote:
...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.
I'm not sure how you ruled out forced wins in 16 moves or less (or maybe you didn't?). The assumption "a perfect player in a losing position will aim to stave off defeat for as long as possible" doesn't provide a player with the ability to keep playing if he has been checkmated. If I use a Venn diagram to illustrate all perfect games I get the diagram below.
I would say that a forced win by Black is less-likely than the other outcomes but can't be ruled out. I'm not aware of any mathematical basis to rule anything out, except to say that all perfect games must be in the same one ellipse (have the same game-theoretic value).
vickalan wrote:
cobra91 wrote:
[…]
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:
[…]
I'm not sure how you ruled out forced wins in 16 moves or less (or maybe you didn't?)...
I would say that a forced win by Black is less-likely than the other outcomes but can't be ruled out. I'm not aware of any mathematical basis to rule anything out...
Reread what I wrote -- I didn't rule it out in the absolute mathematical sense. We just have philosophical differences in the amount of weight that we give to things like empirical evidence, statistical evidence, logic, common sense, and consensus of expert opinion, when all of the available information supports the same conclusion. To me, there is actually a spectrum of confidence levels, with the truth of any given statement falling somewhere along that spectrum.
To you, the probability is either 0 (mathematically disproven), .5 (neither mathematically proven nor mathematically disproven), or 1 (mathematically proven). I'd argue that this view just places infinitely more weight on the judgments of mathematicians than on those of experts in other fields (since there is always a nonzero probability of an error being eventually discovered in a supposedly sound mathematical proof, or of the mathematical theory upon which an accepted proof is based being shown to be inconsistent), but that's a rabbit hole I'd prefer to avoid going deeper into.
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."
Actually, anyone in their right mind would see that the dualistic attitude involved in a debate, which comes from a core illusion of a duality at the core of one’s being, and drop it instantly.
But most of us do not see that primal illusion of duality in ourselves and so we constantly engage in actions that are born from such a distorted perception.