1.g4 opening is losing?

[Ovyron]

Oh, okay then, in that case I informally know that that 20men position is lost for white, and then any future argument from me about 1.g4 will be informal. Resources can't exist in principle for a formal proof, but we already knew that, so it makes no sense to discuss it.

Can 1.g4 be informally proven to be drawn or lost? I think so.

[zullil]

Oh, okay then, in that case I informally know that that 20men position is lost for white, and then any future argument from me about 1.g4 will be informal. Resources can't exist in principle for a formal proof, but we already knew that, so it makes no sense to discuss it.

Can 1.g4 be informally proven to be drawn or lost? I think so.

Sure. Just define "informally proven" appropriately and you're done.

[jp]

Sure. Just define "informally proven" appropriately and you're done.

No. "Informal proof" has already been defined. It means the usual mathematician's proof.
This is to distinguish it from "formal proof".

So Ovyron will just have to say it's his "formal belief" and define that.

[Ovyron]

"A position where no single drawing line is known to exist". That should suffice. My belief breaks down when someone presents a drawing line, which can't be done in that 20men position, so all we need to do is bring it back to the root, and then there would be a "formal belief" that 1.g4 loses by force.

[jp]

"A position where no single drawing line is known to exist". That should suffice.

I think you need to add at least that it's difficult not to slip into a losing line. Otherwise your "formal belief" would include positions no one has any clue or belief about.

[Ovyron]

Okay, I'll let that inconclusive for now. If I win the game against mmt I'll be fine allowing that positions where no single drawn line is known after 1.g4 have a formal belief of being lost (there's no "slipping into a lost position" because it starts as lost.)

[jp]

Well, if it's the "slipping" that bothers you, then just the addition that there are "demonstrated losing lines with no obvious blunders".

[Ovyron]

But that has the problems of having to define "demonstrate" (how do you do that? Is a single game enough?) and "blunder" (is 1.g4 d5 2.g5 a blunder? it being a blunder depends on some other white move not losing, which is circular reasoning because if it's a blunder then the formal belief for 1.g4 doesn't hold.)

This is getting ridiculous, what about we forget about all this and gamble instead? Then, what odds would you accept for 1.g4 being drawn/losing (I'm willing to accept 1-Infinity odds for 1.g4 winning for white by force, so if it does all my belonging are for who bet against me )

Currently, I'd bet 1.g4 is losing at 1:20 odds (I'd pay 20 times my bet to whoever can draw it)

If I win my game against mmt, I'd bet 1.g4 is losing at 1:100 odds (I'd pay 100 times my bet to whoever can draw it)

[jp]

what about we forget about all this and gamble instead?

Gamble? So that our great great ... great great great great grandchildren can possibly collect the winnings?

[Ovyron]

Suppose the results about 1.g4 drawing or losing appear tomorrow, but you can bet for both! So what fraction of your money would you bet for either (or maybe you bet only for one of them?) That's what odds are about, you'd bet for your formal belief.

(this is all hypothetical, no actual money is at stake )

Back to the 20men position that I posted, if the results about it being drawn or lost were going to appear tomorrow, I'd bet EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE that black mates in X. I could eventually bet EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE that 1.g4 loses by force if my formal belief gets high enough, and to me that'd be enough to say it was informally proven (in the same category that the 20men "lost" position is in.)