HERT book is drawish

[jefk]

'weakly solved' ok almost;
but so far, for the math purists, i maintain my claim that with (at least my)
extensive opening research and additional reasoning in a math sense i claim
chess by now has been ''ultraweakly" (*) solved (draw).

(*) there is no clear definition for this anyway and certainly not regarding chess but
it boils down to getting some a priori (Kant or not) knowledge about a game
being fundamentally a draw with best play by both sides or not (four in a row is won
for White yep, chess nyet (its a draw) like it or not)

PS yes some article may come later with some common sense chess knowledge;
maybe not really first aimed at one disciplined Phd level or so; my focus was on chess,
but ok maybe i'll do new research about how much komi should there be in the game of Go
in order to preserve it to be a draw (3 or 4) ; but then it needs to be an integer
@?F)(*^&) and then i could write some thesis showing chess Is a draw at Phd level, even without
using Ai coz i've been working at this for years; at least with a firm but not world shocking conclusion;
like eg the aliens sigh (would a quantum comp or an alien or G itself show a win for White in chess ?
Nyet impossible (Steinitz wanted to play G with giving G a pawn extra but i don't know if he
then also would think he could win; he wasn't like Fischer after all; and how would G
himself (with more than 0 extra time like against ''father''play against the latest fearsome
Patricia 3.x Pohl gambit book or not ? we only can guess, but maybe G itself would also throw in
some counter gambits; we should ask mr C Smith maybe (once his ban is timed out or so
(the English drink too much sometimes i guess (its an IT guy, not always serious apparently )

[jefk]

in other words, a theoretical question can be, 'is there a forced mate in x (eg. 400) ply
for White'. Some people suggest we cannot exclude this. But if you start from the opening
position, it's obvious that the (search) tree (for forced mates as eg. scholars mate) is
widening and then is widening beyond the point of return. Thus the answer to the question
is -a firm- No. Imo you don't need to have a Phd in math to understand this, knowledge
of (and experience in) chess makes it (such knowledge) obvious.
If someone has travelled three times around the earth and then claims the earth
is not flat, based on his/her experience, science should take such a claim seriously, instead of
burning him/her at the stake as they did with Giordano Bruno (1600) eg. because it's not in line with
the holy Bible Churan or Principia Mathematica whatever e.g. it's not a rigorous mathematical 'proof'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

If in mathematical game theory it's still thought that you cannot find such a conclusion
with some logical and empirical reasoning then imo there must be something wrong with
(some foundations and definitions in) such contemporary mathematical game theory (an issue which
in future they might solve by acknowledging there are 'balanced' games, drawn per definition, and
chess (and draughts) is one of such games as found with eg. the Chinese database and
knowledge of endgame rules (and the relatively high drawing margin in chess).

PS thus it's no wonder this (quite simple) Hert 'book' (in fact only some lines) is drawish.
Ofcourse it's drawish. water is wet because this is an emergent property, unless the temperature
is below 0 C or above 100 C; you don't need a math proof for that (lol); but ok with some
quantum mechanical calculations some research team in physical quantum chemistry later might
be able to 'prove' it (even with a quantum computer such a calculation would use a lot of -useless-
energy btw). If in chess one side wins Black or White, it can only be a result of a mistake by the
other side; a positional strategic and not only tactical mistake possibly, but nevertheless a wrong
move which in retrospect can always be corrected. All non 'drawish' books eg. a very sharp gambit
book also in principle, once deeply corrected would also become 'drawish'; simple as that but
it would be a lot of work ie number crunching of course. Meanwhile chess still remains interesting
and fun for humans partly because of such positional and strategic (and as result
sometimes also tactical) mistakes but imo the opening advantage for White has historically been
overestimated by many chess theorists. With a minority as the late Adorjan as exception, and he
was right of course because there even are sound gambits for Black, eg the Benko gambit. Not
so easy to play in practice maybe for many, but then for eg. the Australian GM Smerdon using
a (Scandinavian Marshall) gambit for Black gave him better practical results (than eg. playing
the RL Marshall (*) gambit which is known to be a draw ofcourse (even after d3 instead of d4
a move harder to refute by amateurs but nevertheless also being 'drawish' in the end).

[jefk]

a hot topic on Quora as well, apparently
https://www.quora.com/In-chess-is-there ... n-10-moves

[jefk]

so that's why for the Tcec superfinals there's a biased book and engines play the
same opening both with White and Black. Black and White like day and night

Steinitz once culminated his chess career in a psychiatric institute like Morphy Rubinstein and a few other
superGM's in history claimed he could keep a draw against G himself with a pawn less and almost rightly so (*)
If you want a simple engine testing book with less draws, try this revolutionary new book:

1. e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 b4!!
1. e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.c3!
1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4!
1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.c3
1. e4 e5 2.d4! exd4 3.Nf3
1. e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3
1.e4 e5 2.f4
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6
1. d4 c5!
1.d4 Nf6 2.g4!
1 c4 d5
1.c4 e5 2.d4
1. f4 e5!
1.b3 a5!
1.g3 h5!
1. b4? e5

copyright dr jef, August 2024
have fun

(*) it depends on which pawn ofcourse. and personally i also wouldn't play 1.g4? against the
great G. (or A.) itself (nor 1...f5?! after 1.e4!) but that's another matter (or spirit) isn't it.

Ps and if you are a computer chess whiz you can make a polyglot book out of
this equal probabilities and call it the drjefP3 book.
And don't say then it's 'drawish'
Lol

[smatovic]

[...]
Here are the corrected results:

SF8 --> 77.2%
SF11 --> 80.0%
SF12 --> 86.0%
SF14.1 -> 92.4%
SF16.1 -> 93.8%

Thanks, water might be wet, but it is nice to see such numbers in real.

Towforce suggested a logarithmic graph for engine Elo progress some time ago:

viewtopic.php?p=938480#p938480

--
Srdja