Will computers ever solve chess?

Elroch
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
Preggo_Basashi wrote:

@usarmyparatrooper

1+1 may not = 2, a la Descartes "I think therefore I am"
In other words we can only really be sure we're thinking.

 

So what this spat boils down to is you dislike that he personally is as sure chess is a draw as he is 1+1=2.

You may not like that, but it's his personal choice to make. He's not saying it's proven or it's a certainty.

 

OK, now that that's solved what do you want? To go round in circles for a few more weeks on this point?

For Elroch to admit that he IS claiming certainty and proof in the context of the common use of the words.

But that is a ridiculous thing to hope for. You yourself surely surely state your opinions as definite statements every day without having a proof to back them up. Suppose you say "I am going to the shops later". Have you proved it? Or is it just something you strongly believe will be so (but which could be made false by some surprising intervening event - take your pick. Or regarding statements about the past, I know for a fact that you state things as facts often based on having heard them from a reliable source. It would be possible to be deceived, or mistaken, or many other ways for such a passing on of information to not be a source of certainty.

As others have pointed out, Ponz has been much more pedantic on many occasions, quantifying a low level of uncertainty to clarify this point.

USArmyParatrooper
Elroch wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
Preggo_Basashi wrote:

@usarmyparatrooper

1+1 may not = 2, a la Descartes "I think therefore I am"
In other words we can only really be sure we're thinking.

 

So what this spat boils down to is you dislike that he personally is as sure chess is a draw as he is 1+1=2.

You may not like that, but it's his personal choice to make. He's not saying it's proven or it's a certainty.

 

OK, now that that's solved what do you want? To go round in circles for a few more weeks on this point?

For Elroch to admit that he IS claiming certainty and proof in the context of the common use of the words.

But that is a ridiculous thing to hope for. You yourself surely surely state your opinions as definite statements every day without having a proof to back them up. Suppose you say "I am going to the shops later". Have you proved it? Or is it just something you strongly believe will be so (but which could be made false by some surprising intervening event - take your pick. Or regarding statements about the past, I know for a fact that you state things as facts often based on having heard them from a reliable source. It would be possible to be deceived, or mistaken, or many other ways for such a passing on of information to not be a source of certainty.

As others have pointed out, Ponz has been much more pedantic on many occasions, quantifying a low level of uncertainty to clarify this point.

If I state something as a fact and claim I have proof, I HOLD MYSELF ACCOUNTABLE to that proof. I EXPECT OTHERS TO HOLD ME ACCOUNTABLE, and as you are aware I have no problem with that expectation.

 
o Ponz111 acknowledges that philosophical absolute certainty doesn’t exist.
 
o I ALSO acknowledge that philosophical absolute certainty doesn’t exist.
 
ANNNNNDDDDD...
 
o If I claim to know and can prove .999... = 1 (I can), I am held accountable for that statement.
 
o If ponz111 claims he knows and can prove perfect chess is a draw, HE is held accountable for that statement.
 
I don’t get special treatment because (like ponz111, you, and all reasonable people) I acknowledge absolute certainty doesn’t exist. 
 
ME: “.999 = 1”
 
YOU?: “Well gee he said he isn’t sure”
 
Come on!
Preggo_Basashi

If I say I'm 70% sure chess is a draw, is that OK with you?

How about 94.61% sure?

99.2%?

I mean, just to be clear, I want to know what threshold will trigger weeks of arguments leveled at me for being "too sure"

heh.

USArmyParatrooper

I asked ponz111 if the following a accurately describes his degree of certainty that chess is a draw:

 
o The evidence (in sum and total) is conclusive to the point that - when any person is presented with all the same evidence, the only *rational* choice is to accept the proposition. To do otherwise would be irrational and preposterous.
 
His response: “It is close. However I do leave open the possibility that we do not have free will and I do leave open the possibility [very small possibility] that we are trapped in an alternate universe.
 
Also I think it is possible that some people have very low intelligence and/or are irrational.”
 
IS THIS OR IS THIS NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS NEAR UNIVERSALLY UNDERSTOOD WHEN PEOPLE CLAIM TO “KNOW” AND CAN PROVE?

 

btickler

.999 (repeating decimal) does equal 1

Been down that rabbit hole.  One of my best friends from high school that took far more advanced math courses in college than I did still cannot understand why wink.png.  He's incapable of seeing the meta-reasoning about nomenclature and mankind's chosen ways of representing numbers, and still to this day cannot get over the "but the repeating 9s never reach infinity, so it can never equal 1" hurdle.

Preggo_Basashi
USArmyParatrooper wrote:

I asked ponz111 if the following a accurately describes his degree of certainty that chess is a draw:

 
o The evidence (in sum and total) is conclusive to the point that - when any person is presented with all the same evidence, the only *rational* choice is to accept the proposition. To do otherwise would be irrational and preposterous.
 
His response: “It is close. However I do leave open the possibility that we do not have free will and I do leave open the possibility [very small possibility] that we are trapped in an alternate universe.
 
Also I think it is possible that some people have very low intelligence and/or are irrational.”
 
IS THIS OR IS THIS NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS NEAR UNIVERSALLY UNDERSTOOD WHEN PEOPLE CLAIM TO “KNOW” AND CAN PROVE?

 

Sure.

Reminds me of court standards like "preponderance of evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt"

 

If he's saying chess is a draw beyond reasonable doubt, then I agree.

 

I can't know chess is a draw, but there is no logical argument or evidence to support reasonable doubt.
There are logical arguments, and evidence, to support perfect play is a draw. (no, not prove, I said support)

Preggo_Basashi
btickler wrote:

.999 (repeating decimal) does equal 1

Been down that rabbit hole.  One of my best friends from high school that took far more advanced math courses in college than I did still cannot understand why .  He's incapable of seeing the meta-reasoning about nomenclature and mankind's chosen ways of representing numbers, and still to this day uses the "but the repeating 9s never reach infinity, so it can never equal 1" hurdle.

But if you ever stop, then it's not "repeating" it's some finite number of nines tongue.png

So yeah, seems he's missing the point.

 

Anyway, the easiest way to explain it to kids, I think, is

1/9 is .1111 repeating
2/9 is .2222

etc

then you ask them what they think 9/9 is.

btickler
Preggo_Basashi wrote:

If I say I'm 70% sure chess is a draw, is that OK with you?

How about 94.61% sure?

99.2%?

I mean, just to be clear, I want to know what threshold will trigger weeks of arguments leveled at me for being "too sure"

heh.

False equivalency.  Ponz is saying "I'm only 99.99% sure", but then arguing elsewhere at other times that chess is just a forced draw, period.  A known and incontrovertible conclusion, just unproven.  When called on it, he points back his disclaimer as if that absolved him of arguing certainty elsewhere.

Poster:  "The sky is blue."

Ponz:  "It's actually green."

Raftloads of other posters:  "It's not green, Ponz"

Ponz:  "Well, I admitted it's not 100% sure it is green.  But...it's green."

[next day]

New Poster:  "I read about the sky being blue"

Ponz:  "The sky is green.  Okay, technically not provable, but take it from me, it's green.  Just about all meteorologists agree with me, even though I have never asked them and they have never spoken definitively on the matter."

[rinse and repeat]

Preggo_Basashi
btickler wrote:
Preggo_Basashi wrote:

If I say I'm 70% sure chess is a draw, is that OK with you?

How about 94.61% sure?

99.2%?

I mean, just to be clear, I want to know what threshold will trigger weeks of arguments leveled at me for being "too sure"

heh.

False equivalency.  Ponz is saying "I'm only 99.99% sure", but then arguing elsewhere at other times that chess is just a forced draw, period.  A known and incontrovertible conclusion, just unproven.  When called on it, he points back his disclaimer as if that absolved him of arguing certainty elsewhere.

Poster:  "The sky is blue."

Ponz:  "It's actually green."

Raftloads of other posters:  "It's not green, Ponz"

Ponz:  "Well, I admitted it's not 100% sure it is green.  But...it's green."

[next day]

Poster:  "I read abouth the sky being blue"

Ponz:  "The sky is green"

[rinse and repeat]

Yeah, but Jesus Christ you guys, he's like 80 years old.

OK, so he's not air tight in his word choice in 100% of his posts. So what. I'd rather give him that leeway than quibble about nothing endlessly.

USArmyParatrooper
Just as long as we all agree that (by any REASONABLE definition) he claimed to KNOW and can PROVE it, and now he has the floor. 
 
Wait till you see his proof 🍿
 
Ponz111, you’re on...
Preggo_Basashi
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
Just as long as we all agree that (by any REASONABLE definition) he claimed to KNOW and can PROVE it, and now he has the floor. 
 
Wait till you see his proof 🍿
 
Ponz111, you’re on...

I bet I could find a nearly exact copy of this post over 1 month old.

btickler
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
btickler wrote:
Preggo_Basashi wrote:

If I say I'm 70% sure chess is a draw, is that OK with you?

How about 94.61% sure?

99.2%?

I mean, just to be clear, I want to know what threshold will trigger weeks of arguments leveled at me for being "too sure"

heh.

False equivalency.  Ponz is saying "I'm only 99.99% sure", but then arguing elsewhere at other times that chess is just a forced draw, period.  A known and incontrovertible conclusion, just unproven.  When called on it, he points back his disclaimer as if that absolved him of arguing certainty elsewhere.

Poster:  "The sky is blue."

Ponz:  "It's actually green."

Raftloads of other posters:  "It's not green, Ponz"

Ponz:  "Well, I admitted it's not 100% sure it is green.  But...it's green."

[next day]

Poster:  "I read abouth the sky being blue"

Ponz:  "The sky is green"

[rinse and repeat]

Yeah, but Jesus Christ you guys, he's like 80 years old.

OK, so he's not air tight in his word choice in 100% of his posts. So what. I'd rather give him that leeway than quibble about nothing endlessly.

Yeah, he's getting old.  Why do you think I waited so long to finally weigh in?  It's leeway that I give him that I don't give to other posters.  I let my father tell his stories, too...until he drifts into never-never-land where Bill Clinton and Bill Gates have personally strategized to sabotage his career and starts berating people that don't believe the delusions he has evolved for himself.  Be deluded all you want, just don't try to foist those delusions elsewhere, and especially don't try to beat other people on the head with them as if you just know better than they do.

That's all this thread is at this point...a few sane people trying to keep the waters clear when imprecise and fuzzy arguments and ideas just keep eroding and burying in mountains of BS anything reasonable that is actually produced.

If people kept posting about that ridiculous April Fool's proof of the King's Gambit being busted over and over and over, and they did not get corrected each and every time they fell for it, then "the King's Gambit is busted" would become common "knowledge" in the chess world. 

People still think Kasparov's IQ is 180 no matter how many times he tells them it isn't.  If you don't challenge the BS, the BS becomes accepted as "fact".

Preggo_Basashi
btickler wrote:
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
btickler wrote:
Preggo_Basashi wrote:

If I say I'm 70% sure chess is a draw, is that OK with you?

How about 94.61% sure?

99.2%?

I mean, just to be clear, I want to know what threshold will trigger weeks of arguments leveled at me for being "too sure"

heh.

False equivalency.  Ponz is saying "I'm only 99.99% sure", but then arguing elsewhere at other times that chess is just a forced draw, period.  A known and incontrovertible conclusion, just unproven.  When called on it, he points back his disclaimer as if that absolved him of arguing certainty elsewhere.

Poster:  "The sky is blue."

Ponz:  "It's actually green."

Raftloads of other posters:  "It's not green, Ponz"

Ponz:  "Well, I admitted it's not 100% sure it is green.  But...it's green."

[next day]

Poster:  "I read abouth the sky being blue"

Ponz:  "The sky is green"

[rinse and repeat]

Yeah, but Jesus Christ you guys, he's like 80 years old.

OK, so he's not air tight in his word choice in 100% of his posts. So what. I'd rather give him that leeway than quibble about nothing endlessly.

That's all this thread is at this point...a few sane people trying to keep the waters clear when imprecise and fuzzy arguments and ideas just keep eroding and burying in mountains of BS anything reasonable that is actually produced.

If people kept posting about that ridiculous April Fool's proof of the King's Gambit being busted over and over and over, and they did not get corrected each and every time they fell for it, then "the King's Gambit is busted" would become common "knowledge" in the chess world. 

People still think Kasparov's IQ is 180 no matter how many times he tells them it isn't.  If you don't challenge the BS, the BS becomes accepted as "fact".

So from your POV you're fighting the good fight.

OK, maybe so.

I guess I'd rather the ponz quotes be this week than seemingly always something like:

 

"ponz said he could prove it at some point, maybe it was a few months ago, I'm not sure, so that means his 99.995% is cop out bullshit, and he either needs to prove chess is a draw right now or admit he's totally wrong about everything."

ponz111
USArmyParatrooper wrote:
Just as long as we all agree that (by any REASONABLE definition) he claimed to KNOW and can PROVE it, and now he has the floor. 
 
Wait till you see his proof 🍿
 
Ponz111, you’re on...

I have given a ton of evidence over the past 2 years. Some in this forum and some in  another related forum. I believe that the ton of evidence I have posted add up to proof that chess is a draw. 

If you wish to see the evidence some of it is in this forum. Some in the related forum [which you participated in]. It is all there for you or anyone to see.

ponz111
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
btickler wrote:

.999 (repeating decimal) does equal 1

Been down that rabbit hole.  One of my best friends from high school that took far more advanced math courses in college than I did still cannot understand why .  He's incapable of seeing the meta-reasoning about nomenclature and mankind's chosen ways of representing numbers, and still to this day uses the "but the repeating 9s never reach infinity, so it can never equal 1" hurdle.

But if you ever stop, then it's not "repeating" it's some finite number of nines 

So yeah, seems he's missing the point.

 

Anyway, the easiest way to explain it to kids, I think, is

1/9 is .1111 repeating
2/9 is .2222

etc

then you ask them what they think 9/9 is.

I concede that .99999 [repeat 9s to infinity] equals 1.

however I do not concede that 99.99% equals 100% [the 9s are not repeated past 4 digits.]

ponz111
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
USArmyParatrooper wrote:

I asked ponz111 if the following a accurately describes his degree of certainty that chess is a draw:

 
o The evidence (in sum and total) is conclusive to the point that - when any person is presented with all the same evidence, the only *rational* choice is to accept the proposition. To do otherwise would be irrational and preposterous.
 
His response: “It is close. However I do leave open the possibility that we do not have free will and I do leave open the possibility [very small possibility] that we are trapped in an alternate universe.
 
Also I think it is possible that some people have very low intelligence and/or are irrational.”
 
IS THIS OR IS THIS NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS NEAR UNIVERSALLY UNDERSTOOD WHEN PEOPLE CLAIM TO “KNOW” AND CAN PROVE?

 

Sure.

Reminds me of court standards like "preponderance of evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt"

 

If he's saying chess is a draw beyond reasonable doubt, then I agree.

 

I can't know chess is a draw, but there is no logical argument or evidence to support reasonable doubt.
There are logical arguments, and evidence, to support perfect play is a draw. (no, not prove, I said support)

My standards to prove chess is a draw are way beyond "without a reasonable doubt" [as used in court cases]

The difference between you and me is I think my evidence is WAY HIGHER than "beyond a reasonable doubt" and you seem disagree with this.

ponz111
USArmyParatrooper wrote:

I asked ponz111 if the following a accurately describes his degree of certainty that chess is a draw:

 
o The evidence (in sum and total) is conclusive to the point that - when any person is presented with all the same evidence, the only *rational* choice is to accept the proposition. To do otherwise would be irrational and preposterous.
 
His response: “It is close. However I do leave open the possibility that we do not have free will and I do leave open the possibility [very small possibility] that we are trapped in an alternate universe.
 
Also I think it is possible that some people have very low intelligence and/or are irrational.”
 
IS THIS OR IS THIS NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS NEAR UNIVERSALLY UNDERSTOOD WHEN PEOPLE CLAIM TO “KNOW” AND CAN PROVE?

 

You ask how people understand the word "know" You gave your definition of "know' and I gave my slightly different definition of "know" Most words have various definitions. Most words have various nuances.

I do not think you will get the vast majority of people to agree on just one of all the possible defintions of "know"

But even if you did--I am still entitled to use my defintion of "know" as long as it is consistent with one the dictionary definitions.

LinuxMan

I am sure that this argument is an exercise in futility. That is the reality.

ponz111
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
btickler wrote:
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
btickler wrote:
Preggo_Basashi wrote:

If I say I'm 70% sure chess is a draw, is that OK with you?

How about 94.61% sure?

99.2%?

I mean, just to be clear, I want to know what threshold will trigger weeks of arguments leveled at me for being "too sure"

heh.

False equivalency.  Ponz is saying "I'm only 99.99% sure", but then arguing elsewhere at other times that chess is just a forced draw, period.  A known and incontrovertible conclusion, just unproven.  When called on it, he points back his disclaimer as if that absolved him of arguing certainty elsewhere.

Poster:  "The sky is blue."

Ponz:  "It's actually green."

Raftloads of other posters:  "It's not green, Ponz"

Ponz:  "Well, I admitted it's not 100% sure it is green.  But...it's green."

[next day]

Poster:  "I read abouth the sky being blue"

Ponz:  "The sky is green"

[rinse and repeat]

Yeah, but Jesus Christ you guys, he's like 80 years old.

OK, so he's not air tight in his word choice in 100% of his posts. So what. I'd rather give him that leeway than quibble about nothing endlessly.

That's all this thread is at this point...a few sane people trying to keep the waters clear when imprecise and fuzzy arguments and ideas just keep eroding and burying in mountains of BS anything reasonable that is actually produced.

If people kept posting about that ridiculous April Fool's proof of the King's Gambit being busted over and over and over, and they did not get corrected each and every time they fell for it, then "the King's Gambit is busted" would become common "knowledge" in the chess world. 

People still think Kasparov's IQ is 180 no matter how many times he tells them it isn't.  If you don't challenge the BS, the BS becomes accepted as "fact".

So from your POV you're fighting the good fight.

OK, maybe so.

I guess I'd rather the ponz quotes be this week than seemingly always something like:

 

"ponz said he could prove it at some point, maybe it was a few months ago, I'm not sure, so that means his 99.995% is cop out bullshit, and he either needs to prove chess is a draw right now or admit he's totally wrong about everything."

I have proven chess is a draw. You are rather new to this debate and you have not seen my evidence that chess is a draw.

I have given page after page of evidence that chess is a draw. Some of the evidence is in this forum. Some is in a related forum but it is there for anybody to view.

I have given various pieces of evidence. One piece of evidence, in itself, does not prove chess is a draw. However One piece of evidence after another piece of evidence after another piece of evidenc after another piece of evidence after another piece of evidence ALL pointing to a draw--is enough for me to prove chess is a draw. Therefore I believe it is a fact that chess is a draw and that I have given enough evidence to prove this.

  There are some who have posted lie after lie of what I have posted.

There is some who have posted lie after lie about how I think. There is one person posting lies and misconceptions about my current and past ratings.

It takes me a long time to withstand some of these attacks--many which are based on outright lies. Some people are so upset that I believe I have proven chess is a draw that they attack me by posting things which are simply not true.

ponz111
btickler wrote:
Preggo_Basashi wrote:

If I say I'm 70% sure chess is a draw, is that OK with you?

How about 94.61% sure?

99.2%?

I mean, just to be clear, I want to know what threshold will trigger weeks of arguments leveled at me for being "too sure"

heh.

False equivalency.  Ponz is saying "I'm only 99.99% sure", but then arguing elsewhere at other times that chess is just a forced draw, period.  A known and incontrovertible conclusion, just unproven.  When called on it, he points back his disclaimer as if that absolved him of arguing certainty elsewhere.

Poster:  "The sky is blue."

Ponz:  "It's actually green."

Raftloads of other posters:  "It's not green, Ponz"

Ponz:  "Well, I admitted it's not 100% sure it is green.  But...it's green."

[next day]

New Poster:  "I read about the sky being blue"

Ponz:  "The sky is green.  Okay, technically not provable, but take it from me, it's green.  Just about all meteorologists agree with me, even though I have never asked them and they have never spoken definitively on the matter."

[rinse and repeat]

You have posted so many lies about me and so many lies about my chess abilities and so many lies about my posting--that your credibility is zero with me.