Chess solved?

[mwyoung]

How many more elo until chesd considered solved?

I think Kai thought 400 using some charts till you get all draws (but not solved) Best ask him though.

This issue is like many things in physics. Your understanding and tech can get close to your objective. And still not true. 400 elo will not get you all draw, just more draws. You only need to prove one win to show this is false. And this can not be done. Chess maybe a win for white, or black with best play, or just a draw. So a chart shows you nothing without proof of solution.

If in the future you get a million draws in succession, it is not proof, but evidence towards that chess is a draw, so not nothing imo.

"Your understanding and tech can get close to your objective. And still not true"

Read my post again, and see if you can understand. It is nothing...

If you had a solution, and one side could win, then all games would be won with 0 draws.

[duncan]

How many more elo until chesd considered solved?

I think Kai thought 400 using some charts till you get all draws (but not solved) Best ask him though.

This issue is like many things in physics. Your understanding and tech can get close to your objective. And still not true. 400 elo will not get you all draw, just more draws. You only need to prove one win to show this is false. And this can not be done. Chess maybe a win for white, or black with best play, or just a draw. So a chart shows you nothing without proof of solution.

If in the future you get a million draws in succession, it is not proof, but evidence towards that chess is a draw, so not nothing imo.

"Your understanding and tech can get close to your objective. And still not true"

Read my post again, and see if you can understand. It is nothing...

perhaps you could explain
Have the laws of quantum mechanics been proven?
Are we getting more and more evidence that it is likely they are correct as we record the results of sub atomic collisions?

[mwyoung]

How many more elo until chesd considered solved?

I think Kai thought 400 using some charts till you get all draws (but not solved) Best ask him though.

This issue is like many things in physics. Your understanding and tech can get close to your objective. And still not true. 400 elo will not get you all draw, just more draws. You only need to prove one win to show this is false. And this can not be done. Chess maybe a win for white, or black with best play, or just a draw. So a chart shows you nothing without proof of solution.

If in the future you get a million draws in succession, it is not proof, but evidence towards that chess is a draw, so not nothing imo.

"Your understanding and tech can get close to your objective. And still not true"

Read my post again, and see if you can understand. It is nothing...

perhaps you could explain
Have the laws of quantum mechanics been proven?
Are we getting more and more evidence that it is likely they are correct as we record the results of sub atomic collisions?

Why are changing the subject? And your statement above is not correct either. Even the theory of relativity the most prove theory is know to be only an approximation to a more complete theory. Because it does not explain gravity on the smallest scales. Is gravity quantize?

[duncan]

How many more elo until chesd considered solved?

I think Kai thought 400 using some charts till you get all draws (but not solved) Best ask him though.

This issue is like many things in physics. Your understanding and tech can get close to your objective. And still not true. 400 elo will not get you all draw, just more draws. You only need to prove one win to show this is false. And this can not be done. Chess maybe a win for white, or black with best play, or just a draw. So a chart shows you nothing without proof of solution.

If in the future you get a million draws in succession, it is not proof, but evidence towards that chess is a draw, so not nothing imo.

"Your understanding and tech can get close to your objective. And still not true"

Read my post again, and see if you can understand. It is nothing...

perhaps you could explain
Have the laws of quantum mechanics been proven?
Are we getting more and more evidence that it is likely they are correct as we record the results of sub atomic collisions?

Why are changing the subject? And your statement above is not correct either. Even the theory of relativity the most prove theory is know to be only an approximation to more complete theory. Because it does not explain gravity on the smallest scales. Is gravity quantize?

You say This issue is like many things in physics.

Using the physics analogy (not that I know much about physics)The laws of quantum mechanics have not been proven.
and we are getting more and more evidence that it is likely they are correct as we record the results of sub atomic collisions

[mwyoung]

How many more elo until chesd considered solved?

I think Kai thought 400 using some charts till you get all draws (but not solved) Best ask him though.

This issue is like many things in physics. Your understanding and tech can get close to your objective. And still not true. 400 elo will not get you all draw, just more draws. You only need to prove one win to show this is false. And this can not be done. Chess maybe a win for white, or black with best play, or just a draw. So a chart shows you nothing without proof of solution.

If in the future you get a million draws in succession, it is not proof, but evidence towards that chess is a draw, so not nothing imo.

"Your understanding and tech can get close to your objective. And still not true"

Read my post again, and see if you can understand. It is nothing...

perhaps you could explain
Have the laws of quantum mechanics been proven?
Are we getting more and more evidence that it is likely they are correct as we record the results of sub atomic collisions?

Why are changing the subject? And your statement above is not correct either. Even the theory of relativity the most prove theory is know to be only an approximation to more complete theory. Because it does not explain gravity on the smallest scales. Is gravity quantize?

You say This issue is like many things in physics.

Using the physics analogy (not that I know much about physics)The laws of quantum mechanics have not been proven.
and we are getting more and more evidence that it is likely they are correct as we record the results of sub atomic collisions

Yes I was giving a allegory. Sorry you did not understand.

[Vinvin]

How many more elo until chesd considered solved?

I think Kai thought 400 using some charts till you get all draws (but not solved) Best ask him though.

This issue is like many things in physics. Your understanding and tech can get close to your objective. And still not true. 400 elo will not get you all draw, just more draws. You only need to prove one win to show this is false. And this can not be done. Chess maybe a win for white, or black with best play, or just a draw. So a chart shows you nothing without proof of solution.

If in the future you get a million draws in succession, it is not proof, but evidence towards that chess is a draw, so not nothing imo.

You make an error of logic.
A million (or a billion or a sextillion ...) of successive draw games can proof 2 different things :
1) the game is proof as draw.
2) the player didn't find the forced winning line(s).
Nothing less, nothing more.

Perfect plays is far away of tests and experiences.
A lot of people have trouble to understand that.

[duncan]

How many more elo until chesd considered solved?

I think Kai thought 400 using some charts till you get all draws (but not solved) Best ask him though.

This issue is like many things in physics. Your understanding and tech can get close to your objective. And still not true. 400 elo will not get you all draw, just more draws. You only need to prove one win to show this is false. And this can not be done. Chess maybe a win for white, or black with best play, or just a draw. So a chart shows you nothing without proof of solution.

If in the future you get a million draws in succession, it is not proof, but evidence towards that chess is a draw, so not nothing imo.

You make an error of logic.
A million (or a billion or a sextillion ...) of successive draw games can proof 2 different things :
1) the game is proof as draw.
2) the player didn't find the forced winning line(s).
Nothing less, nothing more.

Perfect plays is far away of tests and experiences.
A lot of people have trouble to understand that.

Do you accept that you can have evidence, even strong evidence with out having proof?
Do you agree that there is a lot of evidence but no proof that a knight and certainly a rook handicap is a loss?
so your 2 options become 3.

1) the game is proof as draw.
2) the player didn't find the forced winning line(s).
3) evidence/strong evidence towards.

[mwyoung]

How many more elo until chesd considered solved?

I think Kai thought 400 using some charts till you get all draws (but not solved) Best ask him though.

This issue is like many things in physics. Your understanding and tech can get close to your objective. And still not true. 400 elo will not get you all draw, just more draws. You only need to prove one win to show this is false. And this can not be done. Chess maybe a win for white, or black with best play, or just a draw. So a chart shows you nothing without proof of solution.

If in the future you get a million draws in succession, it is not proof, but evidence towards that chess is a draw, so not nothing imo.

You make an error of logic.
A million (or a billion or a sextillion ...) of successive draw games can proof 2 different things :
1) the game is proof as draw.
2) the player didn't find the forced winning line(s).
Nothing less, nothing more.

Perfect plays is far away of tests and experiences.
A lot of people have trouble to understand that.

Do you accept that you can have evidence, even strong evidence with out having proof?
Do you agree that there is a lot of evidence but no proof that a knight and certainly a rook handicap is a loss?
so your 2 options become 3.

1) the game is proof as draw.
2) the player didn't find the forced winning line(s).
3) evidence/strong evidence towards.

Yes, you can have strong evidence, and still be wrong. Lets go back to a physics allegory. Isaac Newton theory of gravity was thought to be correct. As it was proven right, it could predict planet motions, comets, and other large scale objects. Then Albert Einstein said but yes, but it can not explain the motion of the planet Mercury. Einstein found a hole, and it only takes one to prove you wrong. Now we have found holes, in Albert Einstein theory, as it only takes one hole in your theory to show you only have an approximation, not proof.

[Dann Corbit]

Notice that the word proof requires proving.
I saw a million white ducks, but that does not mean all ducks are white. One duck that is not white is all the contrary evidence needed.

Proving a game is a difficult thing and very formally described. Even knowing if the starting position of chess is won, lost or drawn is not a formal proof of the game. In that case, it is only weakly solved, because solving the game means that given any arbitrary position, you can show proof of the outcome for that position.

A demonstration is not proof. It is evidence.

A really good guess, with a whole lot of evidence still isn't a proof.
You can say, "It's good enough for me." and maybe it is good enough. It might even be right. But it's still not a proof.
As long as we accept certain axioms, there will always be things proven and things not proven and things we have a pretty good guess about.

There is something that {nearly?} all mathematicians suspect is true:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis
Lots of people have tried to prove it. They will give you a giant pile of money if you prove it. But saying, "I looked at 32 billion examples and all of them had a real part of 1/2." is not good enough.

It has to be a real proof.

[duncan]

How many more elo until chesd considered solved?

I think Kai thought 400 using some charts till you get all draws (but not solved) Best ask him though.

This issue is like many things in physics. Your understanding and tech can get close to your objective. And still not true. 400 elo will not get you all draw, just more draws. You only need to prove one win to show this is false. And this can not be done. Chess maybe a win for white, or black with best play, or just a draw. So a chart shows you nothing without proof of solution.

If in the future you get a million draws in succession, it is not proof, but evidence towards that chess is a draw, so not nothing imo.

You make an error of logic.
A million (or a billion or a sextillion ...) of successive draw games can proof 2 different things :
1) the game is proof as draw.
2) the player didn't find the forced winning line(s).
Nothing less, nothing more.

Perfect plays is far away of tests and experiences.
A lot of people have trouble to understand that.

Do you accept that you can have evidence, even strong evidence with out having proof?
Do you agree that there is a lot of evidence but no proof that a knight and certainly a rook handicap is a loss?
so your 2 options become 3.

1) the game is proof as draw.
2) the player didn't find the forced winning line(s).
3) evidence/strong evidence towards.

Yes, you can have strong evidence, and still be wrong. Lets go back to a physics allegory. Isaac Newton theory of gravity was thought to be correct. As it was proven right, it could predict planet motions, comets, and other large scale objects. Then Albert Einstein said but yes, but it can not explain the motion of the planet Mercury. Einstein found a hole, and it only takes one to prove you wrong. Now we have found holes, in Albert Einstein theory, as it only takes one hole in your theory to show you only have an approximation, not proof.

At this stage I do not think we are really disagreeing as I agree evidence is not proof.