[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

That sounds suspiciously like a zero knowledge proof, no?

I'm interested to read more about this, any recommendations (online, not going to go out buying books)?

or... the name bill haywood 😀

Yes, it's a type of zero knowledge proof. The particular result that one must exist for chess follows from IP=PSPACE. I agree with you that it's a much more interesting topic than Dueces proof of 9/11=Controlled Demolition. Though I'm sure he'll tell us how we're Pelosi's sheep or something for thinking 0 knowledge proofs exist.

Will check it out on Wiki, thanks.

Deuces, do you think that reading about interactive proofs on Wikipedia is reliable, or am I likely to run into the same sort of problems as before with the article referencing commercial books that you have deemed suspect?

You mean Deuces lack of proof, surely. If he had a proof, that might actually be interesting.

lol seriously

I was sotto voicing as Deuces. Obviously he thinks the proof has been supplied. And probably much better written than Shamir's boring PSPACE proof.

Deuces is a proof writing virtuoso, his skills are not even within the realms of being matched. He must have told you about the time he got into a dispute with another (foolish, naive) poster about who writes the best proofs, and he wrote such a good proof that the other poster's head exploded in cartoon fashion.

They let them do some stuff straight. That's how you slide in the communism in plain sight 😀

And everyone stood and clapped. That other poster's name was Einstein.

The bottom line on the chess stuff, if we are to believe the experts, is this:

If you have a perfect GTO chess computer in your pocket that has "solved" the game, you will always draw against someone else with their own GTO computer whether you are playing white or black. That means that during the game there will always be at least one move available to you that will prevent him from having a forced checkmate. Given that, neither white nor black has an "advantage" (using one definition of that word). When it is asserted that white has an advantage, it is not, according to experts, because white (or for that matter black) has a forced win from the gitgo if he plays "perfectly". Rather what they mean (whether they realize it or not) is that white will have more than one choice that will stave off a forced checkmate more often than black will.

In real life having that greater "margin for error" translates into a slightly higher win rate for white when both players are equally and highly skilled.

Yeah, that's not true.

I have no idea where you got this. This is literally impossible to know.

Did you just make that up?

There are endgame tablebases for up to 7 or 8 pieces which play perfect strategy since as they have been solved by brute force. Many of these positions are a forced win for one colour or the other, with a GTO computer or otherwise. The only thing stopping us from brute forcing it with 32 pieces are processing power and memory constraints.

It's not impossible to know. It's just not currently known.

agree impossible to know/prove currently but consensus is this true

yeah and? Someone has an avatar so they have principles? I know he's good on the I/P, but that doesn't mean he's not going to go out and vote for genocide.

Bill's the type of dude...and I feel like I can infer this from his posting...he's the type of dude who, for whatever reason, likes to cozy up to the mainstream whenever he can. He's not a real fighter. He's a Bernie type of dude. Do you remember when Bernie repeated claimed "Joe Biden is my friend" during the 2020 campaign, all the while Biden was like drawing up plans to have Bernie killed if he it looked like Bernie was going to win? It's that same disgusting impulse which is in Bill.

Have you ever read The Sun Also Rises? He's like a steer as represented in that novel.

I don't hold Wikipedia in high esteem. I believe it is under the control or heavy influence of intelligence agencies. Do you doubt this and how heavily if so? Like how crazy am I to think this to you? Don't do any research just answer from the gut if you would,

Before I can answer your question, you'll need to tell me what kind of influence these intelligence agencies exert on Wikipedia and for what purpose. Do you think articles on computer science topics are compromised along with articles on 9/11?

You pretty much answered my question. You're not entirely sure that intelligence doesn't retain editing rights over Wikipedia.

I think they could edit any part of it they want. I don't have any idea why they would want to edit computer science topics. Maybe if someone figured out the replication method of Stuxnet and start sharing it they would swoop in pretty quick.

I didn't answer your question at all. Your question was "how crazy do you think I am to think this?" I mean, it's going to be at least a 7, but I need the requested information before I can give you a more precise figure.

Also, implying that I agree with you because I'm not entirely sure is disingenuous. I could think there is a 1 in 10^-100 chance of it being true, and that still wouldn't be "entirely sure". That in no way signals agreement. Not that I even said that much, I just asked you some clarifying questions.

The replication method of Stuxnet appears to be well known, as I had thought. I just verified this by reading about it on Wikipedia. Pro tip: zero-day exploits stop being zero-day (and therefore secret) when they're discovered.

An odd comment because my post was essentially saying the same thing you said,

let me rephrase.

Forget "GTO" which need not be the same thing as a computer that plays from move one and is following the instructions of the "solved" game. (It's not like poker where there is a perfect GTO strategy even if you are at a disadvantage. In that case GTO minimizes your loss against an expert. But if you are playing chess in a situation where you realize the opponent has a forced checkmate on you there is no "best" way to play to get him to not see it.)

If that perfect playing computer is playing another one it will either always be a win for white, always be a win for black, or always be a draw.

Experts think it is almost certain that it will always be a draw.

If it is indeed a draw than white does not have a theoretical "advantage. But since it wins slightly more often than black in the real world there must be a reason.

Since a perfect playing chess computer will never make a move that gives the opponent a forced checkmate (if it is indeed true that two perfect computers always draw), it is almost certainly true that the reason that black loses more often than white in the real world is because it misses all of the moves that the perfect computer could make. But why would it miss all of these moves more often than white? The reasonable explanation is that the white computer has more choices than black under the constraint that it will not make a move that gives the other guy a forced checkmate. If it has more acceptable choices than black, a fallible human is more likely to hit upon one of those acceptable choices when playing white.

Edit: Upon reading this over I realize that chezlaw's alternative explanation that black is more likely to play for a draw because white's supposed advantage is a self fulfilling prophecy, cannot be dismissed.

We aren't sure about that actually

Yes, it is impossible to know currently. Present tense.