Chess solved?

[mwyoung]

We're not quite devoid of proof: we know that it's not possible to force material gain in the first 30 or so moves from the starting position. We didn't know that in the last century.

Where do you get that idea from? We certainly do not know that.

If it's possible to make material gain early from the opening position, then where's the sequence of moves that achieves it?

Do you understand the difference between knowing that something is true and not having a counterexample?

Two facts that are factual:

1. As long as something like Moore's Law holds, we continue to be able to do bigger tree searches as time passes

2. No way has yet been found of winning material from the starting position

That forced win of material from the starting position is not possible at any depth is speculation on my part, not fact - but I feel confident that it's correct.

This is what makes your head spin about people without any kind of logically thinking.

Everybody's thinking is completely logical: it's just that, roughly speaking, their learning and processing is different to yours.

1. There is a theoretical limit to how fast you can make a computer.

2. And again since you do not what to address this most obvious flaw in your logic. In what rule of chess does it state you must win material. To force a win in a game of chess!

[d]7Q/2p1k1pp/1b1p4/pP2p3/P1B1P3/B1P2bPn/R2N1P1n/4RK2 w - - 0 23

It would be surprising if in chess, it's possible to force a win but not possible to force the win of material.

To me, it seems as though my "logic" (I would have said "thinking pattern") is to look at what's likely to be true in the big picture, whereas a slight issue in your thinking is that it keeps hitting bits and pieces of the (admittedly large) knowledge of chess that you have. I'm looking at the forest from above, you're in the trees.

Also, as stated before, you do actually have to win a piece to win chess (with 2 caveats: 1) you don't actually get to take it 2) the game can also end through resignation or refereeing decision).

And now you are trolling...

You address nothing.

1. The speed of how fast you can make a computer has a theoretical limit.
2. Chess is not a forced win/loss/draw by material balance.

So your logic is clearly flawed, and based only on your feelings.....

[towforce]

We're not quite devoid of proof: we know that it's not possible to force material gain in the first 30 or so moves from the starting position. We didn't know that in the last century.

Where do you get that idea from? We certainly do not know that.

If it's possible to make material gain early from the opening position, then where's the sequence of moves that achieves it?

Do you understand the difference between knowing that something is true and not having a counterexample?

Two facts that are factual:

1. As long as something like Moore's Law holds, we continue to be able to do bigger tree searches as time passes

2. No way has yet been found of winning material from the starting position

That forced win of material from the starting position is not possible at any depth is speculation on my part, not fact - but I feel confident that it's correct.

This is what makes your head spin about people without any kind of logically thinking.

Everybody's thinking is completely logical: it's just that, roughly speaking, their learning and processing is different to yours.

1. There is a theoretical limit to how fast you can make a computer.

2. And again since you do not what to address this most obvious flaw in your logic. In what rule of chess does it state you must win material. To force a win in a game of chess!

[d]7Q/2p1k1pp/1b1p4/pP2p3/P1B1P3/B1P2bPn/R2N1P1n/4RK2 w - - 0 23

It would be surprising if in chess, it's possible to force a win but not possible to force the win of material.

To me, it seems as though my "logic" (I would have said "thinking pattern") is to look at what's likely to be true in the big picture, whereas a slight issue in your thinking is that it keeps hitting bits and pieces of the (admittedly large) knowledge of chess that you have. I'm looking at the forest from above, you're in the trees.

Also, as stated before, you do actually have to win a piece to win chess (with 2 caveats: 1) you don't actually get to take it 2) the game can also end through resignation or refereeing decision).

And now you are trolling...

I am genuinely disappointed that you would say that (link), but I accept that for you, my being a troll is truth.

You address nothing.

1. The speed of how fast you can make a computer has a limit.

Yes - computing has limits - link. One day, advancing physics may enable the current limits to be broken - but that would be irrelevant to this discussion.

2. Chess is not a forced win/loss/draw by material balance.

Well you do have to win your opponent's king.

Having said that, looking at the big picture, wouldn't you agree that it would be surprising (to say the least!) if it were possible to force a checkmate, but not possible to force the win of material?

Big picture about reasoning - there are 3 ways of reasoning:

1. deductive reasoning (Clyde is an elephant: all elephants are grey. Therefore Clyde is grey)

2. abductive reasoning (Clyde is grey. Elephants are grey. Therefore Clyde is an elephant)

3. inductive reasoning (Clyde is an elephant, and Clyde is grey. Rudy's an elephant, and Rudy is grey. Therefore, all elephants are grey)

Of these three ways to reason, only type 1 is guaranteed to produce correct results from correct premises. However, you can't actually go very far with it: the overwhelming majority of human advancement comes from the other two types of reasoning. Obviously, a lot of reasoning goes awry, and people can easily get confused, but progress with is often made by being guided by what is most likely to be true - not by what you know for sure is true.

[mwyoung]

We're not quite devoid of proof: we know that it's not possible to force material gain in the first 30 or so moves from the starting position. We didn't know that in the last century.

Where do you get that idea from? We certainly do not know that.

If it's possible to make material gain early from the opening position, then where's the sequence of moves that achieves it?

Do you understand the difference between knowing that something is true and not having a counterexample?

Two facts that are factual:

1. As long as something like Moore's Law holds, we continue to be able to do bigger tree searches as time passes

2. No way has yet been found of winning material from the starting position

That forced win of material from the starting position is not possible at any depth is speculation on my part, not fact - but I feel confident that it's correct.

This is what makes your head spin about people without any kind of logically thinking.

Everybody's thinking is completely logical: it's just that, roughly speaking, their learning and processing is different to yours.

1. There is a theoretical limit to how fast you can make a computer.

2. And again since you do not what to address this most obvious flaw in your logic. In what rule of chess does it state you must win material. To force a win in a game of chess!

[d]7Q/2p1k1pp/1b1p4/pP2p3/P1B1P3/B1P2bPn/R2N1P1n/4RK2 w - - 0 23

It would be surprising if in chess, it's possible to force a win but not possible to force the win of material.

To me, it seems as though my "logic" (I would have said "thinking pattern") is to look at what's likely to be true in the big picture, whereas a slight issue in your thinking is that it keeps hitting bits and pieces of the (admittedly large) knowledge of chess that you have. I'm looking at the forest from above, you're in the trees.

Also, as stated before, you do actually have to win a piece to win chess (with 2 caveats: 1) you don't actually get to take it 2) the game can also end through resignation or refereeing decision).

And now you are trolling...

I am genuinely disappointed that you would say that (link), but I accept that for you, my being a troll is truth.

You address nothing.

1. The speed of how fast you can make a computer has a limit.

Yes - computing has limits - link. One day, advancing physics may enable the current limits to be broken - but that would be irrelevant to this discussion.

2. Chess is not a forced win/loss/draw by material balance.

Well you do have to win your opponent's king.

Having said that, looking at the big picture, wouldn't you agree that it would be surprising (to say the least!) if it were possible to force a checkmate, but not possible to force the win of material?

Big picture about reasoning - there are 3 ways of reasoning:

1. deductive reasoning (Clyde is an elephant: all elephants are grey. Therefore Clyde is grey)

2. abductive reasoning (Clyde is grey. Elephants are grey. Therefore Clyde is an elephant)

3. inductive reasoning (Clyde is an elephant, and Clyde is grey. Rudy's an elephant, and Rudy is grey. Therefore, all elephants are grey)

Of these three ways to reason, only type 1 is guaranteed to produce correct results from correct premises. However, you can't actually go very far with it: the overwhelming majority of human advancement comes from the other two types of reasoning. Obviously, a lot of reasoning goes awry, and people can easily get confused, but progress with is often made by being guided by what is most likely to be true - not by what you know for sure is true.

So you agree your logic is flawed. OK. I agree!

[towforce]

So you agree your logic is flawed. OK.

That's a straw man argument. In essence, what I am saying is:

Regarding Solving Chess

It is likely that chess has emergent patterns/properties that would enable it to be solved relatively quickly.


Regarding Whether Chess Is A Win Or A Draw

While I agree that there's no absolute proof yet, the balance of evidence strongly favours chess being a draw.

[mwyoung]

So you agree your logic is flawed. OK.

That's a straw man argument. In essence, what I am saying is:

Regarding Solving Chess

It is likely that chess has emergent patterns/properties that would enable it to be solved relatively quickly.


Regarding Whether Chess Is A Win Or A Draw

While I agree that there's no absolute proof yet, the balance of evidence strongly favours chess being a draw.

So you agree. You have addressed nothing....

[chrisw]

So you agree your logic is flawed. OK.

That's a straw man argument. In essence, what I am saying is:

Regarding Solving Chess

It is likely that chess has emergent patterns/properties that would enable it to be solved relatively quickly.

Perhaps you’ld like to present an audit of your skills, qualifications, experience and achievements in this field alongside the (non-demonstrated) emergent properties and the work you do far did to discover these properties?
Absent that, there’s zero reason to take any of these opinions of yours even marginally seriously.

Regarding Whether Chess Is A Win Or A Draw

While I agree that there's no absolute proof yet, the balance of evidence strongly favours chess being a draw.

[towforce]

So you agree your logic is flawed. OK.

That's a straw man argument. In essence, what I am saying is:

Regarding Solving Chess

It is likely that chess has emergent patterns/properties that would enable it to be solved relatively quickly.


Regarding Whether Chess Is A Win Or A Draw

While I agree that there's no absolute proof yet, the balance of evidence strongly favours chess being a draw.

So you agree. You have addressed nothing....

Sorry, what was that about trolling?

[mwyoung]

So you agree your logic is flawed. OK.

That's a straw man argument. In essence, what I am saying is:

Regarding Solving Chess

It is likely that chess has emergent patterns/properties that would enable it to be solved relatively quickly.


Regarding Whether Chess Is A Win Or A Draw

While I agree that there's no absolute proof yet, the balance of evidence strongly favours chess being a draw.

So you agree. You have addressed nothing....

Sorry, what was that about trolling?

towforce --"I apologise if I came across as trolling. The point I was attempting to make was the same point that a famous scientist (maybe Stephen Hawking, I cannot remember) made about intelligent alien life: if it exists, then where is it? It should be everywhere in the galaxy by now (followed by calculations about life spreading through the galaxy)."

[towforce]

Perhaps you’ld like to present an audit of your skills, qualifications, experience and achievements in this field alongside the (non-demonstrated) emergent properties and the work you do far did to discover these properties?
Absent that, there’s zero reason to take any of these opinions of yours even marginally seriously.

I've got a better plan: ignore your poncey self-righteousness, and instead do what I want to do, at a time when I choose to do it.

Many mathematicians who have discovered ways to map patterns in multi-dimensional space in better ways than were known previously went on to make a fortune in financial markets, so maybe I'll do that rather than jump to the whims of somebody who is talking to me as if I'm a piece of shit on their shoe!

[mmt]

I once ran SF Matefinder on this position for over a day:

[d]r3k2r/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1
It reached a depth of 51 but couldn't find a mate. Existing programs are not optimized to be most efficient when there is a huge advantage but this shows that we are far from solving chess.