proof

[mosfel24]

I have been deeply honored by your lengthy and detailed responses to my little comment.

First of all, I would like to say that:

• Chess is a draw
• I have no problems with computer-assisted proofs, non-surveyable proofs, etc.

Therefore, the problem that I have with you, put in short, is your screaming that it's a proof when it's not.

You call your proof an informal proof here,

...
For some other math purists (and the inquistion), as i wrote several times now, there are
different sorts of proofs; even in math. There are formal proofs, and informal proofs (*).
https://staff.fnwi.uva.nl/d.h.j.dejongh ... proofs.pdf
it's also on wikipedia btw
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_the ... rmal_proof
...

but have you ever READ any of the articles you quote? Here you go, if you don't want to click the link:

The informal proofs of everyday mathematical practice are unlike the formal proofs of proof theory. They are rather like high-level sketches that would allow an expert to reconstruct a formal proof at least in principle, given enough time and patience. For most mathematicians, writing a fully formal proof is too pedantic and long-winded to be in common use.

I am not sure if you are too brain-fogged to read the paragraph, or just went to some search engine, typed "Informal proofs", and started copy-pasting links to bolster your argument. Please tell me which case it is, I am interested.

Everybody else in this thread has the same, or very similar, issue. I don't care if your proof is computer-assisted, non-surveyable, etc. But I do care that it is a proof.

Let me put it with this comparison.

A problem is like a river that you need to cross.

A formal proof is like filling in the whole river. Yes I guess theorem-proving computers can get across now, but it is overkill for humans.

An informal proof is like building a bridge. OK I guess a human can cross it just fine with judgement.

Your proof is like sticking a tree branch on one riverbank and calling it a bridge. If you take offense at it being called "not a proof" / "not a bridge", we can also create a third type of proof: the "Incorrect Proof". If you wish your proof to be called an informal proof, please connect the two sides without fancy lawyerly wordplay. Thank you.

You say that (too long ago) that the burden of proof is on us. No, it is not, it is on the person who claims it is a proof. You cannot just call your stick a bridge and tell us to prove that it isn't a bridge. That is silly.

I have tried to keep this response mostly free of ad hominem insults and Nazi calling. However, I must say that you seem like the one playing with Fritz and SF on Playchess than us "serious" engine programmers.

[jefk]

ok felman you now talk (only a bit) more sense, and yep it's not (yet) a -pure- *mathematical proof* maybe.
So what. I don't care really

It''s more like a computer assisted proof although you don't consider this a valid 'proof';
so you're from the math inquisition as well ? Tell me from which mathematical society
you are chairman and from which Phd thesis or otherwise you derive your authority.
Do you consider the computer assisted proof by Schaeffer for checkers as a valid
proof ? Or only as a 'weak solution' maybe ? But a weak solution is a proof.
Because otherwise it wouldn't be a solution.
For an UWS we don't even need a solution, only have to *determine* (not prove) the
theoretical outcome of the game. Well for chess this is a draw; you seem to agree.
Maybe you think like ajedrezista 'chess will be never solved' or something like that ?
A discussion has been quite some time (maybe half a year) ago about whether it
would be technically possible to use a similar approach as the Schaeffer team for
chess thus deriving at a '' weak solution'; estimates were differring , just as estimates
about when Artificial 'super' intelligence will take over the world including all math societies
and their presidents, and then also 'prove'chess a draw (except the strong solution
ofcourse because that will never be possible according to Ajderzista.

Nb yes i did go quickly through some wikipedia articles about 'informal' proofs etc.
(even went briefly (and partly) through the book 'The proof is in the pudding' by the pure
mathematician Steven Krantz but now repeating myself).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_G._Krantz

Anyway the place here imo is not into a philosophical dispute within the
highly abstract topic of metamathematics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamathematics
The reason why by now may have become clear (some post about 'apophenia'
was apparently now removed by a moderator and rightly so (as i knew some chess players, some
math purists and many IT computer people incl some programmers don't tend bot be the most
polite and diplomatic people a fact which for me now has been confirmed again) so i won't give
the moderators anymore headaches by continuing such discussion(s) here about metamath etc.
Metamath is also a program btw
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamath
Apparently you didn't look at the postings in the 'kindergarten' forum on this topic where someone
referred to a certain von Neumann and that at least such person would possibly fabricate a real math
proof for my conjecture (which i now call the 'Kaan conjecture' that chess is
a draw; no i'm not always as modest at Einstein, a reaction maybe to the many scoffers here).
Whereby i indicated various possible ways to go, either via Nash methods or otherwise (expanding on
Zermelo and referring to a class of games which can be proven to be balanced, even without computer
assistance and thus must be considered a draw with perfect play; unlike 4 in a row)
Maybe you also like to post more there in the kindergarten, well have fun but i'm not sure if I
would respond there anymore. While i can accept well founded criticism of course as being
part of the scientific process, the individual critics (besides the insulters) all have a different
approach, whether is mr smatovic, a computer scientists in Germany apparently or yourself
(with obviously some ability in logical thinking but also a bit on the fundamentalist's side when talking
about -the need for- a 'Proof'. Ok, it wasn't a (fundamental, mathematical rigorous) Proof (yet).
So the burden of proof is not on me (you wrote that the burden of proof is on me if i claim i have a proof
but no so-far i only have an UWS this is not a proof Happy now ? .
When i posted my original message here in this thread - which by now imo also should be transferred to the
'kindergarten'- with title 'proof' i was intending to talk about methodology, regarding proofs, not claiming i
had a proof. Only an UWS; and like i said, because of the UWS, the burden of proof imo nowadays
for the game of chess and possibly draughts as well is on the side of those who like to find a win for White;
with the (completely overdone superfluous and energy wasting) numbercrunching Schaeffer method or otherwise.

PS not going to comment on your Fritz/SF comments; i do have a look at the P3 engine sometimes,
playing gambits as human, and indeed used SF for analyzing many opening lines; that's all.
So what.

[lucametehau]

Using Nazi as an insult because someone finds your "proof" ridiculous (which it is) is just, again, ridiculous. Is there no moderation here at all?

[jefk]

so hey , here another one mixing in the debate
a certain mr Luca Metahau Luca from Romania. Well have fun. Nb i didn't use the
word 'nazi'' against someone in a personal sense (as Romanian you may have some
difficulty in reading and properly understanding English idiom, not really my mother
tongue as well but at least with a bit more experience. Note that I only mentioned
the word as example for some people who ridiculized general relativity.
Maybe you found the use of my wording as chess kiddies etc. insulting, well it wasn't
meant as insult, simply an observation which in your situation also seems applicable
https://www.chessprogramming.org/Luca_Metehau
Meanwhile amongst others i first was accused of a possibly mild start of schizophrenia (being a
possible cause of the word which was used Apophenia) a posting by a certain 'shawn' (probably
an arrogant Wharton graduate and author of chess program 'serendipity' possibly with a son
with same name who can play chess) which apparently was removed by the moderator
and later a generalization suggesting that my age may be reason for why some people did't
seem to able to understand my complex reasoning. Well not everyone has an MSc in physics
(moderator Hgm has, but also doesn't yet seems to be on par with my reasoning about chess
being a draw is my impression; at least he's a civilized person, contrary to like, indeed, apparently
many IT kiddies wanting to join the math inquisition and some math purists some with only
a bachelors degree in math but nevertheless apparently enjoying trying to teach me what
a math 'proof' is, or at least should be LOL ).

Basically correct, my long experience indeed leads to levels of thinking
which not all chess kiddies may be able to understand.
Yet the way in which it was stated was an insulting generalization.
If you would say -most- physicists can't make math proofs because they haven't
been educated in such a rigorous discipline it might be to the point although imo
irrelevant in science, but suggesting that because of old age, my reasoning
was incorrect is beyond preposterous (and indeed, insulting). Whether it was
made by a German computer scientist, a Wharton boy or otherwise; and then
it was only logical to respond in an assertive way. tit for tat

If the poster of that comment can apologize for that comment i might tell
him that i really don't think all Germans are bad, impolite, or otherwise.

So who are you Luca besides programmer ? wanting to become a moderator later maybe ?
well good luck then; meanwhile i suggest to mind your own business and don't mix into the
debate if you don't have to say anything sensible Instead of making unfunded claims that my 'proof'
is 'ridiculous'. You are a typical IT boy, big mouth but not graduated in pure math nor having
a Phd in pure math. First of all, i never claimed to have a mathematial rigorous proof.
Only an informal computer assisted 'proof' (can't you read) Second who are you to claim my reasoning
is 'ridiculous'. Not even giving any arguments, just simply apparently joining the math inquisition.
Well for you as well, i suggest to go to the Kindergarten. and have fun there.

PS Clover seems to be a decent engine; why don't you use Nnue i wonder,
maybe you can tell us that in the programming forum; that would make
more sense than at your age trying to play moderator or so.

[smatovic]

[...]
Meanwhile i have been accused of a possibly mild start of schizophrenia (being a possible
cause of the word which was used Apophenia) a posting by a certain 'shawn'
(probably an arrogant Wharton graduate and author of chess program 'serendipity'
possibly with a son with same name who can play chess) which apparently was removed
by the moderator and later a generalization suggesting that my age may be
reason for why some people did't seem to able to understand my reasoning.
[...]

Jef, calm down, take a break, you are already mixing up different threads, the Apophenia thing was not against you but against Towforce's grey elephants and "deep patterns", take it easy.

Re: Story Time: Bill And The Elephants
viewtopic.php?p=967437#p967437

--
Srdja

[jefk]

ok i'm going for a walk,
enough lectures (opening theory and metamath) for today.
So I'm mixing up threads ? hey must be my age then maybe, Lol

At least you srdja have more moderating talent then
this young mr Luca.

[smatovic]

[...]
So I'm mixing up threads ? hey must be my age then maybe, Lol
[...]

Haha

--
Srdja

[mosfel24]

For an UWS we don't even need a solution, only have to *determine* (not prove) the
theoretical outcome of the game.

An ultra-weak solution is still a proof, taken from your favorite source Wikipedia. Use your math jargon correctly.

Ultra-weak solution
Prove whether the first player will win, lose or draw from the initial position, given perfect play on both sides. This can be a non-constructive proof (possibly involving a strategy-stealing argument) that need not actually determine any details of the perfect play.

Shawn reacted to you with sympathy; I am simply puzzled at your lack of basic reading comprehension (as you say you have read the sources). Maybe we should look into the physics work you once did and see if it is of the same quality.

[jefk]

mr mosfel (still didn't give your real name, maybe it's feldman instead of felman)
you didn't read all my comments about the origin of UWS, while it -erroneously- contains the word 'solution' at
then end, it was simply posed as an idea by an IT man (project manager) and nothing more. Thereafter
Allis Phd stated that it means 'determining' (not proving) the theoretical outcome of a game
The wikipedia is out of context (third time now i write this) and not the holy math bible (which
doesn't exist (*) ); and no mr shawn didn't post in a polite way, it was in my impression off topic and
insulting. He also didn't respond my legitimate question about his education (and chess rating).
imo it's this guy, and he wants to become a global 'leader'
https://lauder.wharton.upenn.edu/life-a ... ss-school/
and then he is scorning me that my reasonings about why chess must be draw eg. in correspondence chess
are utterly wrong ? while not being a mathematician himself ? well think again, there are a lot of things
which they don't teach you at business school (Harvard or otherwise) btw


best regards and have a nice day

PS a lot of things are out of context here, understandable maybe because it's only a written forum
and not a zoom meeting or so. Eg. the reaction by rubichess that i would have written about his son.
Well didn't know he had a son. What i meant was a probably son of the first insulter 'shawn'.
Most likely a Wharton boy who also made 'serependity' with a nine year old son (who can play chess).
On a website he claims to want to become a global leader and then posted a comment (not mentioning me
who cares) about 'apophenia'. Only after that the whole thread was

1) transferred to Kindergarten (by a moderator) and
2) the comment about apophenia was removed.

PS2 no the comments by this mr Shawn were not appropriate, they were full of disdain, just like later
mr rubichess (maybe i shouldnt say he looks imo like a nazi but that was a tit for tat comment; i knew a
Dutch guy btw who looks like a nazi and played a minor role in a Dutch ww2 movie). ok my comment
wasn't very nice but then i know how to defend myself (i'm an admirer of the character played
by Charles Bronson when he's attacked by some youth gangs; death wish 2/3 etc. good fun); and if someone
(eg a Wharton man Trump looks imo like a Mafia man or whatever) that is my opinion, yes off topic but
not really an issue for a moderator to engage (unless i would start on beforehand with such things;
no i didn't and if i don't receive apologies from viz and rubichess they also are being put on my foe list;
aka ignored; cleanup time; and an improvement of my time (and psychological management )

PS3 so my reasoning(s) are ''ridiculous'. And this is claimed mostly by some IT kiddies
without any degree in math and continuing to accuse me my reasoning is 'ridiculous'
without producing any valuable stuff them selves. Were my postings about 'best chess opening;
also 'ridiculous' ? (yeah a bit, ask jouni, i was playing devils advocate, but my writings
were not 'ridiculous' (a word used by an IT kiddie Luca, a former math olympiad kiddie
just like syzygy ala Ronald de Man wanted to insult me months ago as math purist
This thread is descending in an abyss if some continue like this; again, i hint
to the moderator to put the whole thread into the kindergarten (initially i hinted
to a tentative, draft preliminary proof, blabla, and UWS, and wrongly also used
the term weakly solving; which i later corrected; nevertheless the sharks IT
boys and chess kiddies are smelling blood and now going to ask moderators
that i should be more polite in reacting to their hostile reactions ?
that would be the world upside down.

PS4 although about computer chess, for a proper moderation team they might like
to be joined with someone with some psychological experience (preferably a degree)
as well. While i don't have a Msc in psychology i several people how have (incl. a
brother six years younger in Amsterdam). having been member of a hiQ society besides
a chess club in the world of 'gifted' people i've seen a lot of people with some
mental 'issues' (understatement). I'll leave it there for the moment.

*) there's a lot of dispute in theoretical math about foundations, and this is not resolved

[jefk]

was editing my latest post but was too late.

so there were some grammar mistakes.
For those who are not math purist, psycho kiddies good (or very good(*) ) in chess or young IT
professional (hitmen or otherwise) this might be easy to understand

Also had three beer btw (on advice or mr sdrja to take things easy

Meanwhile i still advice the moderator to transfer this thread o the kindergarten.
it has been invaded by math purist liking to copy their comments about
something not being a 'proof' (as for the definition of 'informal' proof by
the anonymous mr Felman) i continue to disagree and as you can see
in the kindergarten discussion with one of the few remaining polite people
(as jouni, smatovic and often towforce) i tried to build '' bridges' (in
the math discussion avoiding to going for brute force 'solution' of
the game of Go; which may take a while, as most IT kiddies probably know

There is new thread about which is the 'best' opening and i may come
with a suprise after my treaty (tomorrow) with five A4s' about the Reti
has come to a conclusion (that there's no fundamental advantage).

Stay tuned and have fun.

(*) i like to beat kiddies with chess, eg. on chess.com or lichess with my gambits
with young women prodigies i sometimes have a bit more difficulties but then i
resort to more solid chess (1.Nf3 Reti!) and usually crack them in the endgame
unless they are the Polgar species or so; well shit happens. i'm not Korchnoj or so
(maybe his rating declined later because of his old age, well we have to
ask mr rubichess about this question i suggest)