@drmrboss
It's not proven whether chess is a draw or something else.
It's not proven whether chess is a draw or something else.
Hi, thanks everyone! It seems I have started a debate about whether the KID is sound. While it might not be fully sound at the level computers play at (above 3000), it is played by many top GM's such as Nakamura and was played by Fischer and Kasparov. So I can conclude that it is not inaccurate unless your rating is above 2750 fide. :)
There is one other thing I would like to mention, and this might be a glitch in the engine. When I enter d4 Nf6 c4 into the lichess engine, it recommends e6 for Black and evaluates it as (0.0), dead equal. When I instead play g6 instead of e6, the evaluation shoots up to (+0.6) for white, and it recommends Nc3. However, when I actually play Nc3 for white, the evaluation goes back down to (+0.1). So the KID should be, at most, 10 centipawns worse than the QID which I don't think would qualify it as an inaccuracy. Can someone tell me why this happens, and if it is a bug? Thanks!
There is one other thing I would like to mention, and this might be a glitch in the engine. When I enter d4 Nf6 c4 into the lichess engine, it recommends e6 for Black and evaluates it as (0.0), dead equal. When I instead play g6 instead of e6, the evaluation shoots up to (+0.6) for white, and it recommends Nc3. However, when I actually play Nc3 for white, the evaluation goes back down to (+0.1). So the KID should be, at most, 10 centipawns worse than the QID which I don't think would qualify it as an inaccuracy. Can someone tell me why this happens, and if it is a bug? Thanks!
#21 It is not proven, but there is massive evidence it is, e.g. from TCEC engine versus engine games, from ICCF correspondence games, from the classical World Championship, and from expert opinions by Sapssky, Fischer, Aronian etc.
#22 This is due to the horizon effect. The 32 men position is that complex, that the engine cannot evaluate with any meanng at all. If you add a ply, it goes 1 ply deeper and the evaluation changes. Another play and it changes again.
As said before, the King's Indian Defence is one of the rare openings where black could score a win in the TCEC supefinals. Most TCEC superfinals games a drawn, some are won by white.
#22 This is due to the horizon effect. The 32 men position is that complex, that the engine cannot evaluate with any meanng at all. If you add a ply, it goes 1 ply deeper and the evaluation changes. Another play and it changes again.
As said before, the King's Indian Defence is one of the rare openings where black could score a win in the TCEC supefinals. Most TCEC superfinals games a drawn, some are won by white.
@tpr
However, claiming that it's a theoretical draw appears wrong. In theoretical sciences I have the impression that theory mean that we actually have proven something. Conjecture or hypothesis could be better words here.
However, claiming that it's a theoretical draw appears wrong. In theoretical sciences I have the impression that theory mean that we actually have proven something. Conjecture or hypothesis could be better words here.
@HarshSaber this is because engines cannot evaluate openings precisely. You know, there are no tactics after 1 move in the game and computers play tactically. They don't think strategically like grandmasters. They just outcalculate them.
@pointlesswindows
Strong engines are often using positional concepts and not only tactics.
Strong engines are often using positional concepts and not only tactics.
@Youcandothis , billions of computer engines games are already played, there is no single game where one side win without mistake from the other side.
If you ask this question among, computer engines testers , they will laugh you and assume you as if the person who dont believe "the earth is a sphere etc".
In fact, if you look at stockfish programming forums, you can see 1000-1300 rated programmers can find out 3600+ stockfish mistakes by looking at reverse analysis. As they know that chess is draw, whenever they see a game where Stockfish lose, for example, at move 40, they let stockfish analyse from move 40 to 39, 38, 35 etc.
It is quite similar to telling stockfish, you know you did a mistake, you depart from theoretical 0.00 at move 1 to 0.00 at move 40. , which move you depart from?
If you ask this question among, computer engines testers , they will laugh you and assume you as if the person who dont believe "the earth is a sphere etc".
In fact, if you look at stockfish programming forums, you can see 1000-1300 rated programmers can find out 3600+ stockfish mistakes by looking at reverse analysis. As they know that chess is draw, whenever they see a game where Stockfish lose, for example, at move 40, they let stockfish analyse from move 40 to 39, 38, 35 etc.
It is quite similar to telling stockfish, you know you did a mistake, you depart from theoretical 0.00 at move 1 to 0.00 at move 40. , which move you depart from?
@Youcandothis The thing is that theory in science is changing like crazy. A theory in the 16th century was different than today, wasn't it? And in the next 500 years it will probably change a lot too. Maybe it will go to such abstract level that it would be no longer possible to prove for sure anything at all.
Yes engines are using concepts by programmers, from grandmasters.
Yes engines are using concepts by programmers, from grandmasters.
#24 Provability is a higher degree of truth. In theoretical sciences like mathematics for example the Riemann Hypothesis or the Goldbach conjecture are believed to be true though unproven yet. I remember the time when the map coloring theorem or Fermat's last theorem were unproven.
For all practical purposes we can assume chess is a draw.
For all practical purposes we can assume chess is a draw.
"Provability is a higher degree of truth"
just as I expected, but didn't know the words to express that!
just as I expected, but didn't know the words to express that!
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.