1.g4 opening is losing?

[jp]

But Zenmastur revealed in the game thread he thought you performed badly by losing with White, so he presumably thought it should be drawn, and that wasn't long ago.

[Ovyron]

I don't know what was up with that comment, as at the end of the first game his stance was that he had 1.g4 as losing (if he thought a draw was possible I'd have challenged him to a game on the spot.) Before the game he commented on this thread that he can get Stockfish to some -3.20 score in any line, so unless he'd play white and expect to be able to save some -3.20 position, he'd rather play the black side (but I'm not his spokesperson.)

I do hope he can be persuaded to play a game, for the outcome he believes in.

[Dann Corbit]

A demonstration is not a proof.
E.g.
All ducks are white.
"There is a white duck!"
Q.E.D.

I suppose the interesting thing about chess is due to the fact that the game is finite (about 12,000 ply max)
Therefore, there is a theoretically explainable certain response to the question of "Is a given position won or lost".

On the other hand the exponential nature of chess makes it a far reach for now.

People with intuition can be wrong.
Theories about outcomes can be wrong.
So we don't know. But we do like to guess. Yes, even me.

[Ovyron]

So we don't know. But we do like to guess. Yes, even me.

What's your guess Dann? Is 1.g4 theoretically won for black?

If you think it is drawn:

Do you think you could find a single drawn line in a game against Zenmastur?

If you think it is lost:

Oh well, me too.

[Dann Corbit]

I guess it is lost, but it is possible it may be drawn, and not inconceivable that it is a win.

[jp]

Well, how do we test this, i.e. automate selection of random endgame positions for starters?

We'd also need to decide what a pass or fail for the engine would be.

Yes, after these two steps we'd just run them with and without EGTBs and it's just a simple calculation. It would be nice to not evaluate impossible positions ...
You might want to randomize in a way that would correspond to real positions occurring in games also (e.g. by playing out games with a bit of randomness or using games databases and getting the needed positions).

For the test, I wonder whether the depth or nodes you allow the engines should be a function of the number of pieces. Engines may not have a problem with 4-man positions, but that's partly because they can calculate everything through to the end.

I think it really has to be a depth dependent on how close you are to the end. Probably number of men is the easiest. I don't know what numbers to use, but maybe for 5-man positions, depth 10?

Otherwise, SF will look good as long as it's hitting terminal nodes in every line, and when the position is too far from terminal nodes its performance will suddenly drop. In opening positions, without TBs, SF will struggle to get to terminal nodes without huge depths.

[Zenmastur]

But Zenmastur revealed in the game thread he thought you performed badly by losing with White, so he presumably thought it should be drawn, and that wasn't long ago.

He made a few minor errors, maybe. I don't think they affected the outcome of the game though as I don't think it was a theoretically drawn game.

[Zenmastur]

A demonstration is not a proof.
E.g.
All ducks are white.
"There is a white duck!"
Q.E.D.

I suppose the interesting thing about chess is due to the fact that the game is finite (about 12,000 ply max)
Therefore, there is a theoretically explainable certain response to the question of "Is a given position won or lost".

On the other hand the exponential nature of chess makes it a far reach for now.

People with intuition can be wrong.
Theories about outcomes can be wrong.
So we don't know. But we do like to guess. Yes, even me.

That is not a demonstration of the statement "All ducks are white"!

AND a mathematical demonstration is much more powerful than a proof since a proof can be wrong and demonstrations can't be by definition.

[Zenmastur]

I guess it is lost, but it is possible it may be drawn, and not inconceivable that it is a win.

Not a very commitel statement. I like it! It keeps your options open!

[jp]

He made a few minor errors, maybe. I don't think they affected the outcome of the game though as I don't think it was a theoretically drawn game.

Okay, so does that mean you would not consider playing a game with White?

A demonstration is not a proof.

AND a mathematical demonstration is much more powerful than a proof since a proof can be wrong and demonstrations can't be by definition.

That is not true. All that is required for a "demonstration", i.e. a single game, is that the players make legal moves from beginning to end. Even if you really believe in drawing conclusions from a single piece of data, i.e. a game, it could have masses of result-switching blunders, so of course it can be, if "not wrong by definition", then useless as evidence.