Is there any project coming to solve chess?

[jefk]

syzygy,
yes basically i'm gone from this thread unless i see something overly negative about me.
and i'll going back to weekly or halfmonthly checks, mainly out of curiosity

in this respect, mr Kobra wrote:

the Lemma is *wrong*.
because it wouldn't converge to minimax ?
hmm that still doesn't say it's not sufficient to find a winning strategy if there would be one. No i haven't *proven* that
because i still haven't figured out a clear definition of 'winning strategy' in the Zermelo theorem
Happy now ?
Second, regarding minimax, we have the Chinese database, that clear *is* minimax, and also there we don't find any
winning strategy. And as with judicial evidence in the discipline of law (not pure math, i admit), cumulative
evidence is making a claim stronger, obviously (as towforce also already suggested; for more info i would refer to a book like this
https://assets.cambridge.org/97805216/7 ... matter.pdf|
Quite relevant in this respect is the socalled Daubert standard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard

More boring stuff: assume 1) the term solving in ultraweakly solving (like in weakly and strongly solving)
would need a rigorous proof, (which i strongly doubt in the situation of ultraweakly solving),
but 2) the term solved in the statement 'essentially solved' (beyond resonable doubt) does *not* require a rigorous proof,
as i can derive from the suggestion by syzyg to use such words (as essentially solved, ie determined it's a draw).
but that's a *contradiction* !
Yyes i like proofs by contradiction, as you may have noticed

So maybe indeed the word 'solving' in ultraweakly solving does not need a *rigorous* proof. Despite the term
Lemma maybe being incorrect (i'll do some more homework). Yes this become boring now isn't it.
But more of this reasoning may later appear anyway in the thread 'chess is a draw' (i.e. not here,
also because reasoning via two different threads may become confusing)
happy further chatting (but no slander plsz) and
Happy 2024

[chesskobra]

I don't have a lot to add because I have tried to write in the language that I read/write/speak on a daily basis, and there is no hostility here, but we are speaking different languages. But just want to suggest or even encourage you to write a paper, and send it to a decent journal for publication (and not just to the arXiv or to some reviewer of your choice), and see what responses you get from the editors or the referees (if the editors at all think it necessary to send it to referees). You don't even have to send it to a mathematics or theoretical computer science journal, where they may demand rigorous proofs or where you may encounter toxic or hostile referees. You can try a more liberal or empirical journal. But a decent journal or a relevant computer science conference is important. (Otherwise for every result, there is a journal desperate to publish it. Some journals are also in a publish or perish situation.) Or discuss with some professors and ask for feedback. If 10 of them are dismissive, one might at least give you feedback. Let us know what they say.

[towforce]

I don't have a lot to add because I have tried to write in the language that I read/write/speak on a daily basis, and there is no hostility here, but we are speaking different languages. But just want to suggest or even encourage you to write a paper, and send it to a decent journal for publication (and not just to the arXiv or to some reviewer of your choice), and see what responses you get from the editors or the referees (if the editors at all think it necessary to send it to referees). You don't even have to send it to a mathematics or theoretical computer science journal, where they may demand rigorous proofs or where you may encounter toxic or hostile referees. You can try a more liberal or empirical journal. But a decent journal or a relevant computer science conference is important. (Otherwise for every result, there is a journal desperate to publish it. Some journals are also in a publish or perish situation.) Or discuss with some professors and ask for feedback. If 10 of them are dismissive, one might at least give you feedback. Let us know what they say.

I think jefk is happy to go with "proven beyond reasonable doubt" now. The way to test a legal definition would be to use a legal process:

* get an impartial jury of, ideally, 12 members

* jefk and maybe an accomplice could present the case

* ideally there would be 2 people with expert knowledge opposing the case

* after the presentations, cross-examinations, and summaries, the jury would decide whether the case has been proven

If all that's too much, then a simple debate (under proper debating rules) would have to suffice.

The event could be livestreamed on YouTube.

Right now, I would vote for "proven beyond reasonable doubt". To super-simplify my reasoning, I'm using a variation of the Fermi Paradox - but instead of asking, "If there are aliens, then where are they?", I'm asking "If there's a win, then where is it?". We're not only missing a win, but we're also missing a decent advantage out of the opening.

[syzygy]

I don't have a lot to add because I have tried to write in the language that I read/write/speak on a daily basis, and there is no hostility here, but we are speaking different languages. But just want to suggest or even encourage you to write a paper, and send it to a decent journal for publication (and not just to the arXiv or to some reviewer of your choice), and see what responses you get from the editors or the referees (if the editors at all think it necessary to send it to referees). You don't even have to send it to a mathematics or theoretical computer science journal, where they may demand rigorous proofs or where you may encounter toxic or hostile referees. You can try a more liberal or empirical journal. But a decent journal or a relevant computer science conference is important. (Otherwise for every result, there is a journal desperate to publish it. Some journals are also in a publish or perish situation.) Or discuss with some professors and ask for feedback. If 10 of them are dismissive, one might at least give you feedback. Let us know what they say.

I think jefk is happy to go with "proven beyond reasonable doubt" now. The way to test a legal definition would be to use a legal process:

Or just convince your legislator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

[syzygy]

Right now, I would vote for "proven beyond reasonable doubt".

Exactly what do you consider to have been "proven beyond reasonable doubt"?

[smatovic]

....

Let's call it Towforce's paradox, "If it is not a draw, then where is the win?"

--
Srdja

[towforce]

I think jefk is happy to go with "proven beyond reasonable doubt" now. The way to test a legal definition would be to use a legal process:

Or just convince your legislator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

[towforce]

Right now, I would vote for "proven beyond reasonable doubt".

Exactly what do you consider to have been "proven beyond reasonable doubt"?

For me, "chess is a draw", meaning that neither side can force a win from the standard opening position, is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

In case anyone hasn't read what I've written before, I am completely clear that this is not mathematically proven, and I am also completely clear that the legal standard of proof ("beyond reasonable doubt") has failed in a small number of cases: occasionally, convicted suspects have later been able to prove that they did not commit the crime.

But no: you're never going to see a forced win in chess: there just isn't one to be found.

[towforce]

Let's call it Towforce's paradox, "If it is not a draw, then where is the win?"

Brilliant!

[Magnum]

My suggestion: first prove, if 1.g4 loses or not. Then 1/20 of problem solved .

8-piece Syzygy Endgame Tablebases + Stockfish 20 + maxed out MacBook Pro M5 MAX / Mac Pro M5 ULTRA could help a lot.