Timeline for Can one make high-level proofs about chess positions?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 12 at 9:31 | comment | added | bof | @VladimirDotsenko The punch line of that Capablanca story reminded me of Von Goom's Gambit. | |
| Apr 12 at 8:42 | answer | added | H A Helfgott | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 24, 2023 at 22:19 | comment | added | C7X | Harvey Friedman has conjectured that any formal proof or refutation of "chess is a draw" in ZFC set theory requires very many symbols (in a November 2003 FOM posting). Such a long proof would likely involve either much complicated machinery, brute-force, or a combination of the two. | |
| Aug 26, 2022 at 1:33 | comment | added | PrimeRibeyeDeal | @verret Thank you for introducing me to that concept. It certainly clarifies much of endgame play. For reference, a close analog in go is miai (and Zugzwang corresponds to Seki) | |
| Feb 4, 2016 at 21:12 | answer | added | Gerhard Paseman | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 1, 2016 at 17:07 | vote | accept | Michał Masny | ||
| Feb 1, 2016 at 6:16 | answer | added | none | timeline score: 15 | |
| Feb 1, 2016 at 2:58 | review | Close votes | |||
| Feb 1, 2016 at 10:22 | |||||
| Jan 31, 2016 at 23:23 | comment | added | Vladimir Dotsenko | I am genuinely sorry for the utter lack of seriousness of my comment already now as I type, but I really can't help it, as the timing is most amusing (the story I link appeared on my radar 2 days ago): chess.com/blog/eXecute/a-capablanca-story . | |
| Jan 31, 2016 at 21:28 | answer | added | Timothy Chow | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jan 31, 2016 at 20:04 | answer | added | post.as.a.guest | timeline score: 10 | |
| Jan 31, 2016 at 18:57 | answer | added | Kostya_I | timeline score: 30 | |
| Jan 31, 2016 at 8:44 | comment | added | Olga | I just wanted to say that I love your question, and I would love to see more of such stuff on mathoverflow. I do not think that any of us understands all of (or even half of..) the questions on MO (modulo some exceptions ;)), and personally I read mostly questions related to my area of research. Finding such questions is very refreshing for general curiosity. Thank you! | |
| Jan 31, 2016 at 8:13 | comment | added | verret | Note that the last example on the Wikipedia page was composed by Lasker who was also a mathematician. Maybe this is not a coincidence. | |
| Jan 31, 2016 at 3:34 | comment | added | Michał Masny | @verret I would call thousands of nodes tractable. Also, I should probably quotient out the most obvious symmetries. The corresponding squares seem like the kind of thing I was looking for -- I'd never heard of that before, thanks! | |
| Jan 31, 2016 at 3:24 | comment | added | verret | Why isn't the K+Q vs K example you gave an example for your second question? Or say K+R vs R? The tree is probably too big for a human to draw by hand (probably thousands of nodes) but it's not hard to give a rigorous proof, as you did yourself. A slightly more complicated and interesting example might be the theory of corresponding squares? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corresponding_squares | |
| Jan 31, 2016 at 3:24 | comment | added | Per Alexandersson | I think humans are very good at finding plausible explanations for a pattern that has already been observed. People even tend to motivate why they choose 'x' on a survey, even though the tester changed the answer from 'y' to 'x'! There are so many things in society that can be explained by simple-sounding things and which are correct, but some things are also plain wrong. | |
| Jan 31, 2016 at 3:13 | history | asked | Michał Masny | CC BY-SA 3.0 |