Hehe funneh number.
proof
Moderator: Ras
-
Peter Berger
- Posts: 753
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:56 pm
Re: proof
Let’s consider one of the opening lines you mentioned in this thread yourself:
You claim that one of the good lines for black is the Grunfeld, 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5, which you expect to lead to a draw.
How about 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7? As far as I understand many very strong correspondence players (or very strong chessplayers in general) have serious doubts whether this is a theoretical draw or a loss, so that the Kings Indian has become a rare guest at the highest levels.
Now think back about 15-20 years. At that time the Kings Indian was pretty popular but the Grunfeld (which has since been "repaired" for the time being) looked pretty dubious and even its biggest fans among top players started to avoid it for some time.
These changes over time suggest to me that there is +some+ probabiliy that both may be bustable, so that at some point in the future people will think it is: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6?
And your reasoning in your proof does nothing to help adress this question.
So why should taking back 3 more moves lead to a situation that is completely different? You simply have no clear idea whether chess is a draw or not - you are just convinced it is.
You claim that one of the good lines for black is the Grunfeld, 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5, which you expect to lead to a draw.
How about 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7? As far as I understand many very strong correspondence players (or very strong chessplayers in general) have serious doubts whether this is a theoretical draw or a loss, so that the Kings Indian has become a rare guest at the highest levels.
Now think back about 15-20 years. At that time the Kings Indian was pretty popular but the Grunfeld (which has since been "repaired" for the time being) looked pretty dubious and even its biggest fans among top players started to avoid it for some time.
These changes over time suggest to me that there is +some+ probabiliy that both may be bustable, so that at some point in the future people will think it is: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6?
And your reasoning in your proof does nothing to help adress this question.
So why should taking back 3 more moves lead to a situation that is completely different? You simply have no clear idea whether chess is a draw or not - you are just convinced it is.
-
jefk
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:07 pm
- Location: the Netherlands
- Full name: Jef Kaan
Re: proof
yes king's indian is not so good for Black but Black can avoid it,
as for Gruenfeld, we are with the Nnue now at a point that the eval's are
accurate enough to get a sufficient firm conclusion about the game at
a certain point. And Gruenfeld will maintain it's drawish character; just like
(semi) Slav. We know that 1.g4 isn't good so White should play this but for the rest
it doesn't matter, 1.d4 or 1.Nf3 probably are the 'best' but it really is only a
minuscule 'advantage' and Black always maintains the draw (with perfect play).
The game four in a row was mentioned. If there would be a Nnue program for 4-in-a-row
can't be so difficult (compare with the more difficult shogi) it would quickly show
that the first move in the middle gives significicant advantage.
For the rest in chess, besideds 1.g4 all other initial moves give no advantage, and
thus cannot lead to a win, considering the accuracy of the Nnue method.
Ergo chess is weakly solved, computer assisted proof. If someone
doesn't believe that, that's not my problem.
Example, there still is the example that a Nnue can't see a tactical mate in eg. 35
and then someone might think in chess such a position can suddenly pop up
and bingo White can win still after all. Utter nonsense, Black can always avoid
such odd positions to magicall occur, popup, by playing other lines in the earlier phase
of the game. A forced win for White would mean that such a mate positions would
have to occur in *all* lines, not only in one random game. Some people here still
don't seem to be able to understand this, that's why i gave the extra reasoning with
the -fast/exponential- widening of the tree (for Black) avoidening tactical mistakes;
an extra illustration, but nevertheless imo quite clear to show it's (a force mate)
utterly impossible. Examples with specific openings don't help, while it's my
expertise (Catalan, semislav, blabla, i know it all), it's on a level like on Quora
like 'what's the best opening'. Answere there is no 'best' opening.
PS the comment(s) about my age were by some psycho kiddie were below
the belt, my cognitive functions are still as good as ever, and experience
has been added, experience which for some pyscho kiddies apparently are
difficult to understand. Anyhway i'm going to deal with this separately
(it's a moderator issue ofcourse).
as for Gruenfeld, we are with the Nnue now at a point that the eval's are
accurate enough to get a sufficient firm conclusion about the game at
a certain point. And Gruenfeld will maintain it's drawish character; just like
(semi) Slav. We know that 1.g4 isn't good so White should play this but for the rest
it doesn't matter, 1.d4 or 1.Nf3 probably are the 'best' but it really is only a
minuscule 'advantage' and Black always maintains the draw (with perfect play).
The game four in a row was mentioned. If there would be a Nnue program for 4-in-a-row
can't be so difficult (compare with the more difficult shogi) it would quickly show
that the first move in the middle gives significicant advantage.
For the rest in chess, besideds 1.g4 all other initial moves give no advantage, and
thus cannot lead to a win, considering the accuracy of the Nnue method.
Ergo chess is weakly solved, computer assisted proof. If someone
doesn't believe that, that's not my problem.
Example, there still is the example that a Nnue can't see a tactical mate in eg. 35
and then someone might think in chess such a position can suddenly pop up
and bingo White can win still after all. Utter nonsense, Black can always avoid
such odd positions to magicall occur, popup, by playing other lines in the earlier phase
of the game. A forced win for White would mean that such a mate positions would
have to occur in *all* lines, not only in one random game. Some people here still
don't seem to be able to understand this, that's why i gave the extra reasoning with
the -fast/exponential- widening of the tree (for Black) avoidening tactical mistakes;
an extra illustration, but nevertheless imo quite clear to show it's (a force mate)
utterly impossible. Examples with specific openings don't help, while it's my
expertise (Catalan, semislav, blabla, i know it all), it's on a level like on Quora
like 'what's the best opening'. Answere there is no 'best' opening.
PS the comment(s) about my age were by some psycho kiddie were below
the belt, my cognitive functions are still as good as ever, and experience
has been added, experience which for some pyscho kiddies apparently are
difficult to understand. Anyhway i'm going to deal with this separately
(it's a moderator issue ofcourse).
-
jefk
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:07 pm
- Location: the Netherlands
- Full name: Jef Kaan
Re: proof
Viz wrote
and indicating your level of thinking. are you a chess payer or a programmer;
and what's *your* age ? 14 or so ? Just wondering .
PS it wasn't the first time you made insulting remarks; you also liked
the comment 'no proof'. Well i don't think you are a mathematician.
think so Viz? inappropriate, out of context 'humor' (reported to moderators)funny number
and indicating your level of thinking. are you a chess payer or a programmer;
and what's *your* age ? 14 or so ? Just wondering .
PS it wasn't the first time you made insulting remarks; you also liked
the comment 'no proof'. Well i don't think you are a mathematician.
-
jefk
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:07 pm
- Location: the Netherlands
- Full name: Jef Kaan
Re: proof
Rubichess wrote regarding my age
in addition by way of exception, now are reacting (which i maybe also
should have done to this shawn kiddie)
So my age explains something mr Andreas Matthies.
So you are German, well this for me may 'explain something'.
(some Americans nowadays are even worse, but that's another topic).
And what's *your* age by now ?
PS when Einstein published his general relativity, a bit younger than me i admit there were
hundreds of (mostly German nazi) physicists who fiercely attacked his work, like
'curved space' haha what a nonsense' etc. (or worse, talking about 'jewish' physics).
When the old Albert in the Usa was asked how he had dealt with hundreds of such criticists,
he simply said 'if i had been incorrect, only one correct refutation would have been enough'
(instead of hundreds of agressive bulls shit reactions).
Moderation - removed a grave insult.
https://www.chessprogramming.org/Andreas_Matthies
And no (shawnie or other kiddies), i don't compare myself with A.E., but it was an interesting
comment regarding the philosophy of science, and how it's making progress (read the
structure of scientific revolutions by Kuhn). New thought innovations often are first ridiculed,
then questioned, and only -sometimes much- later become accepted; a well known phenomenon.
No i don't think this topic, nor the thread is inappropriate in this forum, but many reaction
were of such immense stupidity that indeed this cannot give the forum a good reputation
(imo the instulting postings/reactions which i reported do moderations should have been
removed but i got not reaction, only noticed that one other thread (by tforce about elephants)
had been removed to the kindergarten. Maybe a good idea for this thread as well coz i'm
not thinking -out of curiosity' to have a look anyway at the (probably insulting) latest
postings by this american shawn kiddie.
Any others going to insult me ? Be my guest, i will deal with them as well.
(reported to moderator)explains something
in addition by way of exception, now are reacting (which i maybe also
should have done to this shawn kiddie)
So my age explains something mr Andreas Matthies.
So you are German, well this for me may 'explain something'.
(some Americans nowadays are even worse, but that's another topic).
And what's *your* age by now ?
PS when Einstein published his general relativity, a bit younger than me i admit there were
hundreds of (mostly German nazi) physicists who fiercely attacked his work, like
'curved space' haha what a nonsense' etc. (or worse, talking about 'jewish' physics).
When the old Albert in the Usa was asked how he had dealt with hundreds of such criticists,
he simply said 'if i had been incorrect, only one correct refutation would have been enough'
(instead of hundreds of agressive bulls shit reactions).
Moderation - removed a grave insult.
https://www.chessprogramming.org/Andreas_Matthies
And no (shawnie or other kiddies), i don't compare myself with A.E., but it was an interesting
comment regarding the philosophy of science, and how it's making progress (read the
structure of scientific revolutions by Kuhn). New thought innovations often are first ridiculed,
then questioned, and only -sometimes much- later become accepted; a well known phenomenon.
No i don't think this topic, nor the thread is inappropriate in this forum, but many reaction
were of such immense stupidity that indeed this cannot give the forum a good reputation
(imo the instulting postings/reactions which i reported do moderations should have been
removed but i got not reaction, only noticed that one other thread (by tforce about elephants)
had been removed to the kindergarten. Maybe a good idea for this thread as well coz i'm
not thinking -out of curiosity' to have a look anyway at the (probably insulting) latest
postings by this american shawn kiddie.
Any others going to insult me ? Be my guest, i will deal with them as well.
-
RubiChess
- Posts: 644
- Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:20 am
- Full name: Andreas Matthies
Re: proof
Now I'm really getting frightened.
By the way... you are quoting me wrong, I said "may explain something".
Shall I report to the moderators?
A lot younger than you and talking to my 18years old son about science is my personal "proof" for brain power decreasing with age.
Shall I report to the moderators? Well, I don't care.
Last edited by RubiChess on Fri Aug 16, 2024 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
jefk
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:07 pm
- Location: the Netherlands
- Full name: Jef Kaan
Re: proof
well Rubichess this nazi comment was only comparing it with the critical
people about general relativity; so anno 2024 maybe AfD (instead of 'nazi'); or
Reichsbuerger ? these are funny guys. Yes that might (or may) explain something.
Yes, you can report this to the moderator(s) ofcourse (**).
But my post to you was only in reaction to your insulting and insinuating post regarding my age
(and not my wisdom, experience, and deep and broad multi disciplinary knowledge (*) apparently).
Without any basic respect, and not funny at all. In other words i reacted in self defense to your aggressive
posting (now going to look at the latest postings of this Amererican shawn kiddie; mainly out of curiosity;
but he also may get a response, because the moderators (yes he and you were reported imo took
insufficient action).
PS my chess puzzle rating in >2300 on chess.com and on lichess i've been around 2000
in rapid recently. Can you play chess yourself or do you more like to play
with your self programmed program like many kiddies here? just wondering.
(*) putting myself on a 'pedestal' as this shawnie kiddie suggested ? Well it's
simply true. And as thus i shouldn't really posting in this forum, below my
level but that on the other hand, i can advertise my chess book, so there
maybe some usefulness in the end after all, despite some stupid insults.
(**) better than reporting my reaction to a moderator would be to tell the moderator(S)
you are sorry of your original insulting post (which you may have made impulsively) and
subsequently ask them to remove this post which they may consider to remove my later
defensive reaction as well, partly or entirely (the comment about the philosophy of
science may have been interesting, imo, at least for some above kiddie level)
people about general relativity; so anno 2024 maybe AfD (instead of 'nazi'); or
Reichsbuerger ? these are funny guys. Yes that might (or may) explain something.
Yes, you can report this to the moderator(s) ofcourse (**).
But my post to you was only in reaction to your insulting and insinuating post regarding my age
(and not my wisdom, experience, and deep and broad multi disciplinary knowledge (*) apparently).
Without any basic respect, and not funny at all. In other words i reacted in self defense to your aggressive
posting (now going to look at the latest postings of this Amererican shawn kiddie; mainly out of curiosity;
but he also may get a response, because the moderators (yes he and you were reported imo took
insufficient action).
PS my chess puzzle rating in >2300 on chess.com and on lichess i've been around 2000
in rapid recently. Can you play chess yourself or do you more like to play
with your self programmed program like many kiddies here? just wondering.
(*) putting myself on a 'pedestal' as this shawnie kiddie suggested ? Well it's
simply true. And as thus i shouldn't really posting in this forum, below my
level but that on the other hand, i can advertise my chess book, so there
maybe some usefulness in the end after all, despite some stupid insults.
(**) better than reporting my reaction to a moderator would be to tell the moderator(S)
you are sorry of your original insulting post (which you may have made impulsively) and
subsequently ask them to remove this post which they may consider to remove my later
defensive reaction as well, partly or entirely (the comment about the philosophy of
science may have been interesting, imo, at least for some above kiddie level)
-
Viz
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2024 6:24 am
- Full name: Michael Chaly
Re: proof
34, 182 commits to stockfish, most among non-maintainers and most tests submitted to fishtest.jefk wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2024 11:20 am Viz wrote
think so Viz? inappropriate, out of context 'humor' (reported to moderators)funny number
and indicating your level of thinking. are you a chess payer or a programmer;
and what's *your* age ? 14 or so ? Just wondering .
PS it wasn't the first time you made insulting remarks; you also liked
the comment 'no proof'. Well i don't think you are a mathematician.
And who are you quite literally? All I see is bogus "proof" which is not a proof.
"hehe funneh number" is the most on-topic thing someone can respond to this bs.
-
jefk
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:07 pm
- Location: the Netherlands
- Full name: Jef Kaan
Re: proof
who am I ?
well that's a philosophical question about which i'm also wondering sometimes.
If you would look at the newer thread about 'best' chess opening you can find this:
www.amazon.com/Learning-Chess-Openings- ... B00WKE1HJC
The paperback version exists now for more than ten years:
www.amazon.de/-/en/Jef-Kaan/dp/1326180770
But it needs to be updated (in line with the 'newer' kindle version - with slightly different title-, i
admit (i'll do this coming month before I go to the ACO 2024 chess tournament in Krete and
become senior chess world champ (just like eg. Kaufman). Hopefully it will not go like this
movie (black and white like day and night, lol).
PS this is not the only thing i've done in my life ofcourse (but i like to keep some privacy).
A life which is not finished (yet) btw, i'm a lot younger than eg. someone like eg. a
certain Joseph Robinette Biden jr if such a name rings a bell with you (hint he's also called
Joe B. sometimes, and is even more used to insults (eg. by Donnie T also from Wharton)
than me despite having never been on this forum.
PS2 regarding computer assisted proofs, the Nnue method is making a virtual 'map' of
a game (shogi or chess) and as such it's sometimes possible to make some powerful
inductions. Let's say we make a detailed 3D map of the world, and then later based on
such a map make an informal, computer assisted proof that earth is not flat. 'Not a proof' ?
Well i would suggest otherwise, it's quite a valid way of reasoning, especiallyh in physics.
In a similar way with Nnue, with a sufficient detailed 'map' using AI methods it's nowadays possible to
determine if a game as checkers draughts or chess is balanced or not (like 4-in-row or the game of chess
after the erroneous move 1.g4). With backsolving large opening books like the Chinese database some
additional confirmation can be found regarding a possible first move advantage, or not. Thus in such
a -combined- way it's nowadays possible to derive a conclusion about a game (as chess or checkers)
if it's a 'balanced' game or not. And balanced games are drawn with perfect play
(sure you can accuse me of some circular reasoning if i would suggest that
the definition of a balanced game is that it's a draw but i didn't).
well that's a philosophical question about which i'm also wondering sometimes.
If you would look at the newer thread about 'best' chess opening you can find this:
www.amazon.com/Learning-Chess-Openings- ... B00WKE1HJC
The paperback version exists now for more than ten years:
www.amazon.de/-/en/Jef-Kaan/dp/1326180770
But it needs to be updated (in line with the 'newer' kindle version - with slightly different title-, i
admit (i'll do this coming month before I go to the ACO 2024 chess tournament in Krete and
become senior chess world champ (just like eg. Kaufman). Hopefully it will not go like this
movie (black and white like day and night, lol).
PS this is not the only thing i've done in my life ofcourse (but i like to keep some privacy).
A life which is not finished (yet) btw, i'm a lot younger than eg. someone like eg. a
certain Joseph Robinette Biden jr if such a name rings a bell with you (hint he's also called
Joe B. sometimes, and is even more used to insults (eg. by Donnie T also from Wharton)
than me despite having never been on this forum.
PS2 regarding computer assisted proofs, the Nnue method is making a virtual 'map' of
a game (shogi or chess) and as such it's sometimes possible to make some powerful
inductions. Let's say we make a detailed 3D map of the world, and then later based on
such a map make an informal, computer assisted proof that earth is not flat. 'Not a proof' ?
Well i would suggest otherwise, it's quite a valid way of reasoning, especiallyh in physics.
In a similar way with Nnue, with a sufficient detailed 'map' using AI methods it's nowadays possible to
determine if a game as checkers draughts or chess is balanced or not (like 4-in-row or the game of chess
after the erroneous move 1.g4). With backsolving large opening books like the Chinese database some
additional confirmation can be found regarding a possible first move advantage, or not. Thus in such
a -combined- way it's nowadays possible to derive a conclusion about a game (as chess or checkers)
if it's a 'balanced' game or not. And balanced games are drawn with perfect play
(sure you can accuse me of some circular reasoning if i would suggest that
the definition of a balanced game is that it's a draw but i didn't).