Strawman! Only God and a 32 man table base knows if chess is a draw or a win for white or black in chess.
If oneside is a win, a 32 man tablebase would lose playing the losing side without a single blunder against another 32 man TB from the winning side.
And chess engines and humans are not good enough to know and show this, if one side has a forced win.
There is more to forming reasonable beliefs than:
NOT MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN -> I CAN BELIEVE WHATEVER WITH ANY CONFIDENCE
We have overwhelming evidence that perfect chess ends in a draw. You are arguing an equivalent of Goldbach conjecture being false. Sure, it might be the case but no mathematician believes it the same way no reasonable person who knows anything about chess believes the game is not drawn with perfect play.
You may think what ever you want. But you have zero evidence that chess is a draw. Because there is none. It is 100% pure speculation bases on your feelings. Draw rated between weak humans, or draw rate form imperfect chess engines. Is not evidence that perfect chess ends in a draw.
This would be like someone claiming since white has always seen a winning advantage of over 50%. This is over overwhelming evidence that chess is a forced win for white.
"The worst thing that can happen to a forum is a running wild attacking moderator(HGM) who is not corrected by the community." - Ed Schröder
But my words like silent raindrops fell. And echoed in the wells of silence.
mwyoung wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 1:38 am
You may think what ever you want. But you have zero evidence that chess is a draw. Because there is none. It is 100% pure speculation bases on your feelings. Draw rated between weak humans, or draw rate form imperfect chess engines. Is not evidence that perfect chess ends in a draw.
This is evidence. It's an indication, even if it's not very strong. It does not need to be a proof. Everyone understands that we can't prove this for many years, I don't know why you keep repeating the same obvious point. If you don't want to place an even-odds bet, then it means there is evidence (let's say advanced aliens will contact us and tell us the result at some time to resolve the bet).
mwyoung wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 1:38 am
You may think what ever you want. But you have zero evidence that chess is a draw. Because there is none. It is 100% pure speculation bases on your feelings. Draw rated between weak humans, or draw rate form imperfect chess engines. Is not evidence that perfect chess ends in a draw.
This is evidence. It's an indication, even if it's not very strong. It does not need to be a proof. Everyone understands that we can't prove this for many years, I don't know why you keep repeating the same obvious point. If you don't want to place an even-odds bet, then it means there is evidence (let's say advanced aliens will contact us and tell us the result at some time to resolve the bet).
No! You can not prove this ever. Why do you think chess can be proven. What laws of physics do you live under. Your ignorance is profound. If you don't like this response then stop posting such nonsense.
And if chess is a draw as you claimed. Then chess is a coin flip problem. Meaning after millions of games played. With human and computer games. Why do we see the bias winning percentage for white.
That is stronger evidence that chess is a win for white.Then you have for chess being a draw!
"The worst thing that can happen to a forum is a running wild attacking moderator(HGM) who is not corrected by the community." - Ed Schröder
But my words like silent raindrops fell. And echoed in the wells of silence.
mwyoung wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 1:38 am
You may think what ever you want. But you have zero evidence that chess is a draw. Because there is none. It is 100% pure speculation bases on your feelings. Draw rated between weak humans, or draw rate form imperfect chess engines. Is not evidence that perfect chess ends in a draw.
This is evidence. It's an indication, even if it's not very strong. It does not need to be a proof. Everyone understands that we can't prove this for many years, I don't know why you keep repeating the same obvious point. If you don't want to place an even-odds bet, then it means there is evidence (let's say advanced aliens will contact us and tell us the result at some time to resolve the bet).
No! You can not prove this ever. Why do you think chess can be proven. What laws of physics do you live under. Your ignorance is profound. If you don't like this response then stop posting such nonsense.
You don't even understand the meaning of the word "evidence" despite English being your native language.
one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true:
anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true:
Embarrassing.
mwyoung wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 5:23 am
And if chess is a draw as you claimed. Then chess is a coin flip problem. Meaning after millions of games played. With human and computer games. Why do we see the bias winning percentage for white.
That is stronger evidence that chess is a win for white.Then you have for chess being a draw!
You would be searching for a rock to hid under if you understood how you're making a fool of yourself.
mwyoung wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 1:38 am
You may think what ever you want. But you have zero evidence that chess is a draw. Because there is none. It is 100% pure speculation bases on your feelings. Draw rated between weak humans, or draw rate form imperfect chess engines. Is not evidence that perfect chess ends in a draw.
This is evidence. It's an indication, even if it's not very strong. It does not need to be a proof. Everyone understands that we can't prove this for many years, I don't know why you keep repeating the same obvious point. If you don't want to place an even-odds bet, then it means there is evidence (let's say advanced aliens will contact us and tell us the result at some time to resolve the bet).
No! You can not prove this ever. Why do you think chess can be proven. What laws of physics do you live under. Your ignorance is profound. If you don't like this response then stop posting such nonsense.
You don't even understand the meaning of the word "evidence" despite English being your native language.
one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true:
anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true:
Embarrassing.
mwyoung wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 5:23 am
And if chess is a draw as you claimed. Then chess is a coin flip problem. Meaning after millions of games played. With human and computer games. Why do we see the bias winning percentage for white.
That is stronger evidence that chess is a win for white.Then you have for chess being a draw!
You would be searching for a rock to hid under if you understood how you're making a fool of yourself.
I feel fine. Maybe it is because you did not refute anything l said. And can't. Facts always get in the way of your speculation and fantasies.
"The worst thing that can happen to a forum is a running wild attacking moderator(HGM) who is not corrected by the community." - Ed Schröder
But my words like silent raindrops fell. And echoed in the wells of silence.
mwyoung wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 5:23 am
No! You can not prove this ever. Why do you think chess can be proven. What laws of physics do you live under. Your ignorance is profound. If you don't like this response then stop posting such nonsense.
It's like I'm talking past you. I just said that I know I can't prove it and everyone knows we can't prove it. "Evidence" doesn't mean a full proof. We have some indications that chess might be a draw. This has nothing to do with the laws of physics, lol.
mwyoung wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 5:23 am
And if chess is a draw as you claimed. Then chess is a coin flip problem. Meaning after millions of games played. With human and computer games. Why do we see the bias winning percentage for white.
That is stronger evidence that chess is a win for white.Then you have for chess being a draw!
First, I haven't claimed it's a draw. I said it's more likely. Second, no. There are more white draws than wins with the best play we can examine.
mwyoung wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 5:23 am
No! You can not prove this ever. Why do you think chess can be proven. What laws of physics do you live under. Your ignorance is profound. If you don't like this response then stop posting such nonsense.
It's like I'm talking past you. I just said that I know I can't prove it and everyone knows we can't prove it. "Evidence" doesn't mean a full proof. We have some indications that chess might be a draw. This has nothing to do with the laws of physics, lol.
mwyoung wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 5:23 am
And if chess is a draw as you claimed. Then chess is a coin flip problem. Meaning after millions of games played. With human and computer games. Why do we see the bias winning percentage for white.
That is stronger evidence that chess is a win for white.Then you have for chess being a draw!
First, I haven't claimed it's a draw. I said it's more likely. Second, no. There are more white draws than wins with the best play we can examine.
Let us not talk past each other.
1. How is any chess game statistic from chess played by imperfect players and computers. Why is this any kind of evidence as to chess is a win or draw with perfect play?
You can not marry these two contradictions.
"The worst thing that can happen to a forum is a running wild attacking moderator(HGM) who is not corrected by the community." - Ed Schröder
But my words like silent raindrops fell. And echoed in the wells of silence.
Alayan wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 12:54 am
This chart looks nice, but it's also very bad quality data.
No data source is given, I'll assume it's something like the CCRL DB.
The opponent mix that each engine face is different, and has a decisive impact on the draw rate. An engine that only faces engine within +-50 elo would not exhibit the same draw rate as an engine facing a 300 elo weaker or stronger entity. Stockfish 12 8CPU at CCRL blitz scored >89% against 5 of its 13 opponents.
If you take FastGM bullet list, newer versions of Stockfish have a decreasing draw rate because they dominate weak engines ever more decisively.
Therefore, the draw rate of an engine at CCRL is only a very poor and unreliable lowerbound of the draw rate between similarly strong engine of this level.
Another major issue is comparing human classical elo with engine elo in unclear conditions. A 2500 GM classical game and a 2500 CCRL blitz game are very different in nature. The use of forced openings for variety in CCRL data also alters the draw rates.
The 5200 elo lowerbound extrapolation is a case of garbage in, garbage out.
Also, the A0 "datapoint" is a joke...
It's not perfect data, but it's the best I have seen. The correlations are not perfect - but they're good.
If chess is a win, then as the elo level rises, you'd expect the line on the elo v draws chart to change direction and start going downwards at some point.
Writing is the antidote to confusion.
It's not "how smart you are", it's "how are you smart".
Your brain doesn't work the way you want, so train it!
Nay Lin Tun wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 6:32 pm
For people who are still wondering white or black forced win, show me a single game where one side forced win without a single blunder from the opponent.
There are billions of computers games and human games played already to proove/ disprove your assumption.
Strawman! Only God and a 32 man table base knows if chess is a draw or a win for white or black in chess.
If oneside is a win, a 32 man tablebase would lose playing the losing side without a single blunder against another 32 man TB from the winning side.
And chess engines and humans are not good enough to know and show this, if one side has a forced win.
I don't want a re-run of the "Is Chess Solved" thread until I've made some good progress, but I do think that it is likely that chess can be solved with today's technology, and that means without having a 32 piece tablebase.
One of the ideas discussed in that thread follows on from what Nay Lin Tun said in the quoted text above. Checkmate in chess is closely analogous to winning material, so if you can force checkmate, it's very likely that it must be possible to force the win of material. So the following route to resolution might be possible:
1. What conditions must exist in a position in order to win material? Condition Set 1 (CS1)
2. What conditions must exist in order to get CS1 (CS2)
3. What conditions must exist in order to get CS2 (CS3)
etc.
Initially, this looks daunting, but remember we have automated mathematical proving applications (based on SAT solvers) available, so it might be doable (it's not the approach I am personally using - but it might well get you to the solution of chess faster than the one I have chosen).
Just thinking about what condition set level you'd need to go to in the above model. I would guess that some of CS2 would be in CS1. Some of CS3 would be in the union of CS1 and CS2.
Once you get to:
CSn is a subset of { CS1 ... CS[n-1] }
Then you have all the conditions. Then you can check them against the starting position.
Writing is the antidote to confusion.
It's not "how smart you are", it's "how are you smart".
Your brain doesn't work the way you want, so train it!
mwyoung wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 5:23 am
No! You can not prove this ever. Why do you think chess can be proven. What laws of physics do you live under. Your ignorance is profound. If you don't like this response then stop posting such nonsense.
It's like I'm talking past you. I just said that I know I can't prove it and everyone knows we can't prove it. "Evidence" doesn't mean a full proof. We have some indications that chess might be a draw. This has nothing to do with the laws of physics, lol.
mwyoung wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 5:23 am
And if chess is a draw as you claimed. Then chess is a coin flip problem. Meaning after millions of games played. With human and computer games. Why do we see the bias winning percentage for white.
That is stronger evidence that chess is a win for white.Then you have for chess being a draw!
First, I haven't claimed it's a draw. I said it's more likely. Second, no. There are more white draws than wins with the best play we can examine.
Let us not talk past each other.
1. How is any chess game statistic from chess played by imperfect players and computers. Why is this any kind of evidence as to chess is a win or draw with perfect play?
You can not marry these two contradictions.
When we have no perfect players the best conjecture for the result is the result of the best imperfect players.
I believe this logic work for other games that today are solved but not many years ago.
People proved that 1.e3 is winning move in the losing chess game and I wonder what is the statistic of games of top players in this game many year ago.
I will be surprised to find out that at some point of time there was majority of draws by top players.
Checker(8*8) is proved to be a draw and again
I believe that a big majority of top level games were draws even before solving the game.
I would like to see if there is some statistics that show a different result for games that people solved and are not trivial for humans.
